HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-12 UPDATED BOA Agenda Packet ReducedIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, April 12, 2023 – 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Appeal Item
a.APL23-0002: An appeal submitted by David Moore to overturn a decision of the
Building Official to extend a building permit for a single-family home at 319 N. Van
Buren Street: alleging that the proposed building does not meet setback and other
requirements of City Code. [materials updated April 10, 2023]
4.Special Exception Item
a.EXC23-0003: An application submitted by Mark Holtkamp (A Latte Buzzness)
requesting special exceptions to allow a drive-through facility associated with an
eating establishment and a drive-through facility associated with an Automated
Teller Machine (ATM) in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for property south
of N. Dodge Street and west of N. Scott Boulevard.
5.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 8, 2023
6.Board of Adjustment Announcements
7.Adjournment
If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please
contact Kirk Lehmann, Urban Planning at 319 -356-5247 or at klehmann@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: May 10 / June 14 / July 12
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
APL23-0002
ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA
Updated Cover Sheet
Prepared by Staff
2
UPDATED COVER SHEET
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: APL23-0002
Parcel Number: 1010162004
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant(s)/Contact:
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: April 12, 2023 (updated)
David Moore
425 E. Davenport Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
david_lysa@yahoo.com
smshullaw@gmail.com
Michael Oliveira
Prestige Properties Development, LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
To overturn a decision of the Building Official to
extend a building permit for a single-family home
To revoke the permit extension.
319 N. Van Buren Street
Location Map:
Size: 2,800 square feet
3
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant; Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(RNS-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with a Conservation District
Overlay (OCD/RNS-12)
East: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12)
South: Residential; Commercial Office (CO-1)
West: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with a Conservation District
Overlay (OCD/RNS-12)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-2A-4B-4: Building Features Permitted Within
Required Setback Area
File Date: February 15, 2023
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location & Zoning Maps
2.Staff Materials
3.Owner Materials [Owner requests their materials be disregarded]
4.Updated Correspondence
5.Application Materials
4
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL23-0002
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Maps
Prepared by Staff
5
N
G
i
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
N
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
E Bloomington St
E Davenport St
$ -
͵ͳͻ . 6 " 3; alleging it
Ǥ
q APL23-0002
319 N Van Buren Street
0 "ǣ % "
$ 0ǣ - ʹͲʹ͵
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
6
N
G
i
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
N
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
E Bloomington St
E Davenport St
CO1 CO1
RNS12
$ -
͵ͳͻ . 6 " 3; alleging it
Ǥ
µAPL23-0002
319 N Van Buren Street
0 "ǣ % "
$ 0ǣ - ʹͲʹ͵
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
7
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL23-0002
ATTACHMENT 2
Staff Materials
Prepared by Staff
8
Date: April 7, 2023
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, Building Official
Re: Case APL23-0002- An appeal of a decision of the Building Official regarding front
setbacks at 319 N. Van Buren Street.
Introduction
This memo is to provide the Board information regarding the evaluation of front setbacks at the
subject property. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone
“RNS-12” and a building permit for the construction of a detached single-family dwelling has been
issued by the City.
Issue
City staff’s understanding of the appeal is the appellant maintains a stairway extends into the
front setback area in violation of the Zoning Code.
Zoning Code Provisions
The key Zoning Code provision at issue is Section 14-2A-4B-2d, which is set forth below. Other
Code provisions cited in this memo and relevant definitions can be found at the end of the
memo.
4. Building Features Permitted Within Required Setback Area: The following
building features may extend into the required principal building setback area, subject to the
conditions indicated and provided that location of such a feature does not violate the provisions
of chapter 5, article D, "Intersection Visibility Standards", of this title.
d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located
above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback.
City’s Analysis and Decision
The City’s decision to issue a building permit is based on the following.
The building plans show a detached single-family dwelling with 3-stories. The subject property
qualified for “setback averaging,” which results in the minimum front setback as 9.8’. The required
front yard setback area is the area between the street-side lot line(s) along North Van Buren
Street and a line drawn parallel to the street and west 9.8’ from the street. Within this required
front “setback area” principal buildings are not allowed, except for certain building features as
specified in Section 14-2A-4B-4 of the Iowa City Code.
9
The lowermost story of the proposed building is considered the ground floor/first floor of the
building by the zoning code and is labeled “Lower Level” on the building plan set, sheet 5, which
is attached to this memo.
The plans show an entry door to be located on the building façade adjacent to North Van Buren
Street on the ground/first floor. The entry door is oriented south and opens into the ground
floor/first floor living space (“south facing entry door”). The ground floor/first floor is connected
to the rest of the habitable space of the dwelling. The south facing entry door is the principal
means of access to the single dwelling unit proposed on the property.
A second door is to be located on the building façade adjacent to North Van Buren Street on the
next story above the ground floor/first floor which is labeled “Main Level” on the building plan
set, sheet 5. This door is oriented east and accessed via a stairway (“east facing entry door”).
Stairways are an allowed building feature which may extend into the required principal building
setback areas subject to the conditions indicated in 14-2A-4B-4d. The stairway, while it does
access the level of the building above the ground floor/first floor, is not the principal means of
access to the building The principal means of access to the building as stated above is the
south facing entry door on the building façade adjacent to North Van Buren Street.
Therefore, the stairway can extend without limit into the front setback area.
City Code Provisions
Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 9 Definitions (14-9A-1)
ABUT/ABUTTING: Contiguous; having a common boundary, wall, or property line.
ALLEY: An open public way intended for use as a means of vehicular access to abutting property.
BASEMENT: A portion of a building located partially underground but having three and one-half
feet (3.5') or more of its floor to ceiling height above grade. A "basement" is counted as a story
for the purpose of height and setback regulations.
BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or
protect persons, animals or property.
BUILDING FACADE: The exterior wall of a building adjacent to a street, the front or side along a
private street, or civic space.
DWELLING: A building wholly or partially used or intended to be used for residential occupancy.
DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A single-family use that is not attached to any other
dwelling unit.
DWELLING UNIT: Any habitable room or group of adjoining habitable rooms located within a
dwelling and forming a single unit with facilities used or intended to be used by one household for
living, sleeping, cooking and eating meals. Multiple dwelling units exist if there is more than one
meter for any utility, more than one address to the property, more than one kitchen, and/or if there
is a lockable, physical separation between rooms within the dwelling unit such that a room or
rooms on each side of the separation could be used as a dwelling unit.
FRONTAGE: The distance as measured along a right of way line from one intersecting street to
another, from one intersecting street to the end of a dead end street or from one intersecting
street to the end of a cul-de-sac.
10
GRADE (Adjacent Ground Elevation): The average point of elevation of the finished surface of
the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line or,
when the property line is more than five feet (5') from the building, between the building and a
line five feet (5') from the building. When the finished surface of the ground has been raised by
adding fill to create a higher grade around a building, the slope of the fill within twenty feet (20')
of the building shall not exceed four (4) horizontal to one vertical or twenty five percent (25%).
GROUND FLOOR/FIRST FLOOR: The lowest floor of a building having its floor to ceiling height
at or above the grade.
LOT, CORNER: A lot located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets.
LOT, INTERIOR: A lot bounded by a street on only one side.
LOT LINE, STREET-SIDE: Any lot line that separates a lot from a public or private street (not
including alleys or private rear lanes).
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: Property dedicated to public use and intended for the movement of the
public.
STREET, LOCAL: A street used primarily for access to abutting property and for moving local
traffic.
PROJECTIONS (INTO SETBACKS): Parts of buildings, such as architectural features, which
protrude into required setback areas.
PRIMARY BUILDING: The building that serves all activities related to the principal use of the
design site.
PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE: The frontage of a lot to which the address is assigned.
PRINCIPAL BUILDING: A building containing the principal use.
PRINCIPAL USE: The primary use of land or a structure as distinguished from an accessory
use, e.g., a dwelling is a principal use on a lot in a residential zone, while a garage or pool is an
accessory use.
SETBACK: The distance between a specified object, such as a building, and another point.
"Setbacks" are usually measured from lot lines to a specified object. Unless otherwise indicated,
an unspecified setback refers to a building setback.
SETBACK AREA: A required area on a lot unoccupied by structures above grade, except for
projections and specific accessory uses or structures allowed in such area under the provisions
of this title. A "setback area" extends from the grade upward.
SETBACK (AREA), FRONT: The area on a lot between the street-side lot line(s) and the front
setback line.
SETBACK LINE: The line beyond which a specified use, object, building or structure shall not
project, except as specified in this title.
SETBACK LINE, FRONT: A line drawn parallel to the street and as far back from the street as
specified for the principal building, front setback.
11
STREET, PUBLIC: A right of way, dedicated to and accepted for public use, which affords a
means of access to abutting property and a means of vehicular travel. A public street is owned or
controlled by a government entity.
Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 2A Dimensional Requirements Single-Family Residential
Zones (14-2A-4):
The dimensional requirements for the single-family residential zones are stated in table 2A-2,
located at the end of this section and described in more detail in subsections A through E.
Subsection B is entirely about setbacks for principal buildings.
2. General Setback Requirements: Generally, the minimum required setbacks for
principal buildings in residential zones are stated in table 2A-2, located at the end of this
section. The minimum setbacks for principal buildings create required setback areas within
which principal buildings are not allowed, except for certain building features as specified in this
subsection.
The table states the Minimum Front Setbacks for principal structures in the RNS-12 zone is
fifteen (15) feet.
e. Setback Averaging:
(2) Where at least fifty percent (50%) of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal
buildings that are located closer to the street than the required front setback, the front setback
may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots. Only the
setbacks on the lots that abut each side of the subject property along the same street may be
used to calculate the average. Setbacks across the street or along a different street frontage
may not be used. When one abutting lot is vacant or if the lot is a corner lot, then the average is
based on the setback of the nonvacant lot and the required setback for the zone in which the lot
is located.
The subject property qualified for setback averaging, therefore the minimum front setback as is
9.8’.
4. Building Features Permitted Within Required Setback Area: The following building
features may extend into the required principal building setback area, subject to the conditions
indicated and provided that location of such a feature does not violate the provisions of chapter
5, article D, "Intersection Visibility Standards", of this title.
d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located
above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback.
Attachments:
Approved Building Plans
Full Code of 14-2A-4
Setback Averaging Calculation
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
14-2A-4: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
The dimensional requirements for the single-family residential zones are stated in table 2A-2, located at the end of this section. Each of
the following subsections describes in more detail the regulations for each of the dimensional requirements listed in the table. Provisional
uses and uses allowed by special exception may have specific dimensional requirements not specified in table 2A-2, located at the end of
this section. Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in chapter 4, article B of this title. Dimensional requirements may be waived or
modified for developments approved through the planned development (see chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development Overlay Zone
(OPD)", of this title) or through the historic preservation exception as outlined in section 14-2A-7, "Special Provisions", of this article.
A. Minimum Lot Requirements:
1. Purpose: The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of a size, width, and frontage that is
appropriate for the uses permitted in the subject zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site development standards of this title
can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit standards control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new
dwellings with the surrounding development.
2. Standards: Generally, the minimum lot area and width standards for the various single-family residential zones and for specific
residential uses are stated in table 2A-2, located at the end of this section.
3. Minimum Lot Sizes For Specific Land Uses:
a. Provisional uses and uses allowed by special exception may have specific lot size requirements not specified in table 2A-2,
located at the end of this section. Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances,
Special Exceptions, And Provisional Uses", of this title.
b. If a minimum lot size is specified within a zone for a particular land use or dwelling type, whether permitted, provisional or a
special exception, that use or dwelling type may not be established on a smaller lot, even if smaller lots are permitted in the subject base
zone, except as permitted under chapter 4, article E, "Nonconforming Situations", of this title.
B. Minimum Setback Requirements For Principal Buildings:
1. Purpose: The minimum setback requirements are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting;
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the city's neighborhoods;
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
2. General Setback Requirements: Generally, the minimum required setbacks for principal buildings in residential zones are stated in
table 2A-2, located at the end of this section. The minimum setbacks for principal buildings create required setback areas within which
principal buildings are not allowed, except for certain building features as specified in this subsection.
3. Specific Setback Requirements: The following provisions contain setback requirements that apply in specific situations:
a. Setbacks Along Arterial Streets:
(1) On lots platted after December 31, 1983, a minimum forty foot (40') front setback is required along any lot line that abuts an
arterial street or future arterial street as shown on the Iowa City arterial street map, located in chapter 5, article C, "Access Management
Standards", of this title.
(2) If a lot is located along an arterial street that is substandard with regard to the width of the public right of way as specified in
title 15, "Land Subdivisions", of this code, then the minimum forty foot (40') front setback along said street is increased by the number of
additional feet that will be required for future upgrade of said street to city standards. Lots platted prior to December 31, 1983, are exempt
from this requirement. In addition, setback averaging may apply in certain circumstances. (See subsection B3e of this section.)
b. Lots With Multiple Frontages:
(1) On corner lots, no building, structure or planting, unless specifically exempted, may be located within the vision triangle, as
set forth in chapter 5, article D, "Intersection Visibility Standards", of this title.
(2) If a lot fronting on two (2) or more streets is required to have a front setback, a minimum setback equal to the required front
setback must be provided along all streets, and such setback will be considered a front setback for purposes of this title.
c. Lots With Multiple Buildings: The principal buildings on the lot must be separated by a horizontal distance of at least ten feet
(10'). Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current building code fire protection requirements.
d. Overlay Zones And Special Districts: If specific setbacks have been established in a historic or conservation district, a planned
development, or in the central planning district, those setbacks supersede the setback requirements of the base zone. For properties
located in a historic or conservation district, refer to chapter 3, article B of this title and also the applicable setback provisions in the Iowa
City historic preservation handbook. For a property located in a planned development overlay zone, refer to the approved planned
development overlay plan for the subject property. For two-family uses, multi-family uses, group living uses, and institutional/civic uses
located on property in the Central Planning District, refer to the applicable setback provisions in section 14-2B-6, "Multi-Family Site
Development Standards", of this chapter. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
e. Setback Averaging:
(1) Where at least fifty percent (50%) of the lots along a frontage have been developed and all of these developed lots are
occupied by principal buildings that are located at least five feet (5') further from the street than the required front setback, the required
front setback along the frontage is increased to the equivalent of the setback of the building closest to the street. However, this averaging
provision does not apply to frontages that contain three (3) or fewer lots. (Ord. 12-4488, 8-21-2012)
20
Figure 2A.1 - Setback Averaging (1)
(2) Where at least fifty percent (50%) of the lots along a frontage are occupied by principal buildings that are located closer to the
street than the required front setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on the abutting lots.
Only the setbacks on the lots that abut each side of the subject property along the same street may be used to calculate the average.
Setbacks across the street or along a different street frontage may not be used. When one abutting lot is vacant or if the lot is a corner lot,
then the average is based on the setback of the nonvacant lot and the required setback for the zone in which the lot is located. (See figure
2A.2 of this section.)
Figure 2A.2 - Setback Averaging (2)
4. Building Features Permitted Within Required Setback Area: The following building features may extend into the required principal
building setback area, subject to the conditions indicated and provided that location of such a feature does not violate the provisions of
chapter 5, article D, "Intersection Visibility Standards", of this title. The setback regulations for detached accessory structures and
structures not considered part of the principal building are addressed in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title.
a. Awnings, uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses, canopies, chimneys, cornices, sills, and other similar
features that extend beyond the wall of a principal building may project up to six feet (6') into the required front or rear setbacks. Except
for balconies, bay windows, and chimneys, all such projecting building features may extend up to three feet (3') into the required side
setback. Balconies and bay windows may not extend into the required side setback. Chimneys may extend up to two feet (2') into the
required side setback. Projections from the principal building must in all cases be at least two feet (2') from any side lot line. (Ord. 05-
4186, 12-15-2005)
b. Enclosed porches, covered decks, and covered patios that are attached to the principal building must comply with the principal
building setbacks of the base zone and may not extend into the required setback area. Unenclosed and screened-in porches (non-
habitable space) may extend up to fifteen feet (15') into the rear setback, provided they are set back at least twenty feet (20') from the rear
lot line. The standards for uncovered decks and patios are specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title.
Enclosed porches, covered decks, and covered patios that are attached to an accessory building must comply with the standards for
accessory buildings as specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. (Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018)
c. Fire escapes may extend into any setback, provided they do not extend more than three feet (3') into any side setback.
d. Stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above the ground or first floor of a building
may not extend into any required setback. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
e. Stoops and wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground or first floor of a building may extend into the
rear setback, up to eight feet (8') into the required front setback, and into the side setback, provided they are set back at least three feet
(3') from any side lot line. In cases where, due to topography or other site characteristics, a wheelchair ramp cannot meet this standard, a
minor modification may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for minor modifications contained in chapter 4,
21
article B of this title. (Ord. 09-4365, 12-1-2009)
5. Adjustments To Principal Building Setback Requirements:
a. A minor modification to reduce principal building setback requirements may be requested according to the approval criteria and
procedures for minor modifications contained in chapter 4, article B of this title.
b. A special exception may be requested to reduce principal building setback requirements beyond what is allowed by minor
modification. The Board of Adjustment may adjust setback requirements if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that
the general special exception approval criteria and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied:
(1) The situation is peculiar to the property in question;
(2) There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements;
(3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations; and
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical.
(5) The subject building will be located no closer than three feet (3') to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear
property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space.
C. Building Bulk Standards:
1. Maximum Height:
a. Purpose: The height regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings;
provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity.
b. Standards: Generally, the maximum height standards for structures in single-family residential zones are stated in table 2A-2,
located at the end of this section. Height standards for accessory buildings are addressed in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And
Buildings", of this title.
c. Exemptions: If allowed in the subject zone, the following structures or parts thereof are exempt from the height limitations set
forth in the zones indicated, provided an increase in height does not conflict with chapter 6, "Airport Zoning", of this title:
(1) Chimneys or flues.
(2) Spires on religious or other institutional buildings.
(3) Cupolas, domes, skylights and other similar roof protrusions not used for the purpose of obtaining habitable floor space.
(4) Farm structures, including barns, silos, storage bins and similar structures when accessory to an allowed agriculture use.
(5) Flagpoles that extend not more than ten feet (10') above the height limit or not more than five feet (5') above the highest point
of the roof, whichever is less.
(6) Parapet or fire walls extending not more than three feet (3') above the limiting height of the building.
(7) Poles, towers and other structures accessory to a basic utility use, such as street lights and utility poles.
(8) If allowed in the subject zone, basic utilities and communication transmission facilities are exempt from the base zone height
standards, but are subject to any limitations placed by the Board of Adjustment.
(9) Roof structures, including elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical
and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building.
(10) Television antennas and similar apparatus.
d. Adjustment Of Height Standards:
(1) The maximum height for a principal building may be increased; provided, that for each foot of height increase above the
height standard, the front, side, and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional two feet (2'); and provided, that an increase in
height does not conflict with the provisions of chapter 6, "Airport Zoning", of this title.
(2) A minor modification may also be requested to adjust the maximum height for a particular building or property according to
the procedures and approval criteria for minor modifications contained in chapter 4, article B of this title.
2. Minimum Building Width:
a. Purpose: The minimum building width requirements promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between dwellings in a
neighborhood.
b. Standards: The minimum building width requirements for principal structures in single-family residential zones are stated in table
2A-2, located at the end of this section. A principal building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least
seventy five percent (75%) of the building's length. (See figure 2A.3 below.)
Figure 2A.3 - Minimum Building Width
22
D. Maximum Lot Coverage Standards:
1. Total Building Coverage:
a. Purpose: The total building coverage standard helps to define the character of single-family residential zones by limiting the land
area that can be covered by buildings. These standards work in conjunction with the minimum lot requirements and building bulk
standards to determine how built up a neighborhood appears.
b. Standards: The total building coverage standards for the various single-family residential zones are stated in table 2A-2, located
at the end of this section. The maximum building coverage standard establishes the percentage of the total area of a lot that can be
covered by buildings. The total building area of all buildings on the property, including both principal and accessory buildings, is used to
calculate the building coverage.
2. Front Setback Coverage:
a. Purpose: The front setback coverage standard ensures that a certain portion of the front setback area remains free of impervious
surface, which helps to maintain a consistent and pleasant environment along neighborhood streets. These standards increase public
safety by preventing excessive front yard paving and vehicular storage that may obscure the principal dwelling and the main entrance
from view of the street. In addition, this standard helps to prevent neighborhood streets that are dominated by front yard pavement,
particularly along frontages with narrow residential lots.
b. Standard: The maximum front setback coverage standard for the single-family residential zones is stated in table 2A-2, located
at the end of this section. The table lists the maximum percentage of the required front setback that may be covered by impervious
surface, including driveways, walkways, patios, decks, and other paved areas. Front setback coverage may not exceed the percentage
indicated in said table 2A-2.
c. Exception: A special exception may be requested to increase the allowed front setback coverage. The Board of Adjustment may
adjust the front setback coverage standard if the owner or lawful occupant of a property demonstrates that the general special exception
approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, and the following specific approval criteria have been satisfied:
(1) The lot is of an irregular shape or contains severe topography, such that there is practical difficulty meeting the front setback
coverage standard.
(2) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings, paved areas, and vehicular use areas to
meet the front setback coverage standard. Such efforts include reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas and size of
garages and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property. If vehicular access to an alley or private rear lane is
available, the front setback coverage standard may not be increased.
(3) Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the front setback coverage regulations.
(4) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent practical. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
E. Minimum Open Space Requirements:
1. Purpose: The minimum open space requirements are intended to ensure a minimum amount of private, usable open space is
provided to support the health, well-being and enjoyment of the residents of the dwelling. The intent of the open space is to support
passive recreation, leisure activities, informal gathering, and opportunities for interaction with nature.
2. Minimum Requirements:
a. On lots that contain multi-family uses or group living uses, usable open space shall be provided on each lot at a ratio of ten (10)
square feet per bedroom, but not less than four hundred (400) square feet, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with
each area not less than two hundred twenty five (225) square feet with no dimension less than fifteen feet (15').
b. On lots that contain detached single family uses, a minimum of five hundred (500) square feet of usable open space shall be
provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than twenty feet (20').
c. On lots that contain attached single family uses, a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) square feet of usable open space shall be
provided, located in the rear yard with no dimension less than ten feet (10').
d. On lots that contain two family uses, a minimum of three hundred (300) square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit shall
be provided, located in one or more clearly defined, compact areas, with each area not less than three hundred (300) square feet with no23
dimension less than twelve feet (12').
3. Standards:
a. For multi-family uses and group living uses, open space shall meet the standards as set forth in subsections 14-2G-7E1 through
E7 of this chapter.
b. For single family uses and two family uses open space shall be located behind the principal dwelling in an area visible and easily
accessible from the principal dwelling and shall consist of open planted green space, which may include trees, planters, gardens, and
other amenities that support passive recreation or leisure activities. Paved areas shall not be counted toward usable open space. For
attached single family uses, rooftop or upper floor open air terraces or rear yard-facing porches, including screened-in porches (non-
habitable space only) may count toward the open space requirement.
4. Minor Modification: A minor modification may be requested according to the provisions and approval criteria of section 14-4B-1,
"Minor Modifications", of this title, to reduce the required open space for single family and two family uses in the following circumstances,
provided the additional approval criteria stated in subsection E4e of this section, are satisfied. Note that reducing the open space may
reduce the allowed occupancy of a rental property (see title 17, chapter 5, "Housing Code", of this Code):
a. In order to establish up to two (2) off-street parking spaces (surface parking or in a garage) on a lot that currently has fewer than
two (2) off-street parking spaces; or
b. If the lot is a corner lot, is irregular in shape, substandard in size, or contains severe topography, or other unique circumstance,
such that there is practical difficulty meeting the standard; or
c. The lot contains a manufactured home, where due to the shape/dimensions of the home there is practical difficulty meeting the
standard; or
d. The lot contains a detached zero lot line dwelling, where the side yard is designed to serve as usable open space for the
dwelling;
e. Approval criteria:
(1) The applicant has demonstrated that every effort has been made to design buildings, paved areas, and vehicular use areas to
meet the open space requirement. Such efforts may include but are not limited to reducing the width of driveways, reducing paved areas
and size of new buildings or additions, and providing alternative means of vehicular access to the property; and
(2) The open space requirement will be satisfied to the extent possible in another location on the lot, such as a side yard; and
(3) Any potential negative effects resulting from the exception are mitigated to the extent possible.
Table 2A-2: Dimensional Requirements In The Single-Family Residential Zones
Zone/Use
Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk
Maximum Lot
Coverage Maximum
Number
Of
Bedrooms
Per Unit11
Minimum
Open
Space (Sq.
Ft.)10
Lot
Size
(Sq.
Ft.)
Area/Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot
Width
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Ft.)
Front
(Ft.)
Side
(Ft.)
Rear
(Ft.)
Maximum
Height
(Ft.)
Minimum
Building
Width
(Ft.)
Total
Building
Coverage
Front
Setback
Coverage
Zone/Use
Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Building Bulk
Maximum Lot
Coverage Maximum
Number
Of
Bedrooms
Per Unit11
Minimum
Open
Space (Sq.
Ft.)10
Lot
Size
(Sq.
Ft.)
Area/Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot
Width
(Ft.)
Frontage
(Ft.)
Front
(Ft.)
Side
(Ft.)
Rear
(Ft.)
Maximum
Height
(Ft.)
Minimum
Building
Width
(Ft.)
Total
Building
Coverage
Front
Setback
Coverage
RR-1
Detached
single-
family,
including
zero lot
line
40,000 40,000 80 50 156 5+22 20 35 203 40% 50% n/a 500
Other
uses1 40,000 n/a 80 50 20 5+22 20 35 203 40% 50% n/a n/a
RS-5
Detached
single-
family,
including
zero lot
line
8,0008 8,000 608 458 156 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% n/a 500
Duplexes 12,000 6,000 80 80 156 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% 4 300/unit
Attached
single-
family
6,000 6,000 40 40 156 0 or
105 20 35 203 45% 50% 4 150
Other
uses1 8,000 n/a 60 45 20 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% n/a n/a
Detached
single-
family,
including
zero lot
line
5,0008 5,000 458 408 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 45% 50% n/a 500
24
RS-8 Duplex 8,700 4,350 70 70 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 45% 50% 4 300/unit
Attached
single-
family
4,350 4,350 35 35 156 0 or
105 20 35 203 45% 50% 4 150
Other
uses1 5,000 n/a 45 40 20 5+22 20 35 203 45% 50% n/a n/a
RS-
12
Detached
single-
family,
including
zero lot
line
5,0008 5,000 458 408 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 50% 50% n/a 500
Duplex 6,000 3,000 55 40 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 50% 50% 4 300/unit
Attached
single-
family 3,000 3,000 20/287 20 156
0 or
105 20 35 183 50% 50% 4 150
Other
uses1 5,000 n/a 45 40 20 5+22 20 35 203 50% 50% n/a n/a
RNS-
12
Detached
single-
family
5,000 5,000 45 25 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 40% 50% n/a 500
Duplex 6,000 3,000 45 25 156 5+22 See
note
9
35 203 40% 50% 4 300/unit
Multi-
family
uses
5,000 Existing4 45 25 156 5+22 20 35 203 40% 50% 3
10/bedroom,
but no less
than 400
Other
uses1 5,000 n/a 45 25 20 5+22 20 35 203 40% 50% n/a n/a
n/a = not applicable
Notes:
1. Other uses must comply with the standards listed in this table unless specified otherwise in chapter 4, article B of this title.
2. Minimum side setback is 5 feet for the first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story. Detached zero lot line dwellings must comply with the applicable side
setback standards in chapter 4, article B of this title.
3. A building must be in compliance with the specified minimum building width for at least 75 percent of the building's length.
4. See the special provisions of this article regarding multi-family uses.
5. See applicable side setbacks for attached single-family as provided in chapter 4, article B, "Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, And Provisional
Uses", of this title.
6. The principal dwelling must be set back at least 15 feet, except on lots located around the bulb of a cul-de-sac; on such lots the principal dwelling must be set back
at least 25 feet. On all lots, garages, both attached and detached, must be set back as specified in chapter 4, article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title.
7. Minimum lot width is 20 feet for attached units on interior lots and 28 feet for end lots in a row of attached units. When only 2 units are attached, lots must be 28 feet
wide.
8. If the single family density bonus options have been applied, the minimum lot area, lot area per unit, lot width and lot frontage requirements may be reduced
accordingly. (See section 14-2A-7 of this article.)
9. The principal building rear setback is 20 feet, except in the Central Planning District and Downtown Planning District, where the rear setback is dependent on the
depth of the lot. For lots equal to or less than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = 20 feet. For lots greater than 100 feet in depth: minimum rear setback = lot depth
less 80 feet. For purposes of this provision, garages located in the rear yard and attached to the principal dwelling with a (non-habitable) breezeway (8 feet or narrower in
width) will be considered detached accessory buildings and, therefore, are subject to the setback requirements for detached accessory buildings, rather than principal
building setback requirements. Similarly, subject breezeways shall be treated as detached accessory structures/buildings.
10. Open space must meet standards set forth in subsection 14-2A-4E of this section.
11. Any bedroom within a multi-family, attached single family or duplex that exceeds 225 square feet in size or has any horizontal dimension greater than 16 feet shall
count as 2 or more bedrooms, as determined by the City. The maximum number of bedrooms may be further constrained by the provisions of title 17, chapter 5, "Housing
Code", of this Code.
(Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018)
25
Title 14 Zoning Code
Chapter 2 Base Zones
A. Single-Family Residential Zones
4. Dimensional Requirements
B. Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Buildings
3. Specific Setback Requirements
e. Setback Averaging:
(2) Where at least fifty percent (50%) of the lots along a frontage are occupied
by principal buildings that are located closer to the street than the required front
setback, the front setback may be reduced to the average of the respective setbacks on
the abutting lots. Only the setbacks on the lots that abut each side of the subject
property along the same street may be used to calculate the average. Setbacks across
the street or along a different street frontage may not be used. When one abutting lot is
vacant or if the lot is a corner lot, then the average is based on the setback of the
nonvacant lot and the required setback for the zone in which the lot is located.
(See figure 2A.2 of this section.)
Figure 2A.2 - Setback Averaging (2)
26
Staff Analysis-Front Setback Distance:
This lot qualifies for setback averaging as 4 out of 5 lots (80%) along this frontage are
occupied with buildings closer than the 15’ base zone front setback. The subject lot is
not a corner lot as it is only bounded by one street. While streets and alleys are both
public rights-of-way, only streets are used in the setback averaging calculation. Only
the highlighted abutting lot’s measurement is used for calculation.
Therefore, Front setback for subject lot is:
9.8’/1 = 9.8’
27
APL23-0002 ATTACHMENT 3
Owner Materials
[Owner requests their materials
be disregarded]
Prepared by Owner
28
29
30
APL23-0002 ATTACHMENT 4
Updated Correspondence
Prepared by Identified Party
31
1
Board of Adjustment April 8, 2023
In an April 7 memo defending the decision to allow a staircase to intrude into the
required front setback, the Building Official states: “Stairways are an allowed building
feature which may extend into the required principal building setback area subject to the
condition indicated in 14-2A-4B-4d. The stairway, while it does access the level of the
building above the ground/first floor, is not the principle means of access to the building.
The principal means of access to the building as stated above is the south facing entry
door on the building facade adjacent to Van Buren Street. Therefore the stairway can
extend without limits into the front setback area.”
In making this interpretation the Building Official relies heavily on Section 14-2A-
4:B.4.d. (from now on referred to as Section d.). Section d. states, “Stairways that
function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above the ground
or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback.” The presence of
this clause and its reference to “principal access” should not lead to allowing a full-story
staircase to a second access for a single-family house to intrude into the required
setback area, especially when read in context of the entire section addressing what
building features are allowed in the setback area.
The Building Official’s claim that “Stairways are an allowed building feature which may
extend into the required principal building setback area subject to the conditions
indicated in 14-2A-4B-4d….." is incorrect. Nowhere in the code (including section 14-
2A-4B-4.d.) does it say that stairways to a second floor are permitted to extend into a
required setback area for a single-family dwelling, regardless of whether it leads to a
principal or secondary access.
The portions of a building that the zoning code lists as being allowed to extend into the
setback are: awnings, uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses,
canopies, chimneys, cornices, sills, and other similar features (Section 14-2A-4: B.4.a.).
The proposed full-story stairway is not similar to these items. It is, however, similar in
design and scale to porches, covered decks, and covered patios. All items that are
expressly prohibited from extending into the setback area (Section 14-2A-4: B.4.b.).
Read Section d. closely. “Stairways that function as the principal means of access to
dwelling units located above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into
any required setback.” The modifier “located above the ground floor” refers to dwelling
units, not principal access. In other words Section d. is saying if a building contains
dwelling units above the ground floor the building may not have a stairway (which
provides principal access to those dwelling units) extending into a setback. It does not
say if primary access is on the ground floor a stairway may lead to a second door on an
upper floor, as the Building Official misinterpreted.
Section d. refers to dwelling units above the ground floor for a reason. The use of
dwelling units plural indicates that it is referring to multiple units. This clause is not
referring to a single family dwelling. How could you have a single family dwelling above
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31a
2
the ground floor? If the single family dwelling is above the ground floor, what is on the
ground floor? In reality part of the single family dwelling has to be on the ground floor.
The reason that Section d. is in the code is that in the 1990s some developers were
constructing multi-unit buildings with exterior staircases as means of access to dwelling
units located on upper floors. This style of construction allows a building to achieve a
maximum amount of leasable space with a minimum amount of interior common space
to be maintained. However, it can also result in aesthetic and safety concerns. The City
wished to discourage this type of design so Section d. was added to the code to
expressly prohibit exterior staircases in the setback area as the primary means of
access to dwellings located above the ground floor of multi-unit buildings. Other than
emphasizing that full-story exterior staircases are undesirable even on multi-family
buildings, Section d. is meaningless in the context of a single family dwelling.*
The section immediately following Section d., Section 14-2A-4B-4.e. (Section e.) applies
to single-family dwellings and other residential buildings. Section e. states: “Stoops and
wheelchair ramps that function as a means of access to the ground or first floor of a
building may extend into the rear setback, up to eight feet (8') into the required front
setback . . .” Section e. makes it clear that stairs that are allowed in the setback area
are limited to the ground or first floor. The Building Official ignored this clause in her
statement. Why would the zoning code limit stairs that are in the setback area to the
ground floor in Section e, but allow them to upper floors in Section d? When read
correctly it doesn’t.
The Building Official apparently did not take into account Section 14-4C-2: J.1.b, which
prohibits the construction of decks and platforms within 10 feet of the front property line.
The proposed staircase includes two landing platforms and decks within the prohibited
area.
Even if one bought the argument that stairways to the second floor are allowed if they
are providing secondary access, it would be questionable that the plan for 319 N. Van
Buren complies with this misinterpretation. The building and site plans show that the
second-floor door to which the encroaching staircase leads, is the front door to the
house. It faces the street and provides access to the main living area. It is clearly the
principal access. The first-floor door located on the southeast corner of the building
does not face the street. It faces an alley and will be hidden behind the staircase. It is
clearly not the principal access.
It should be noted that on February 3, 2022 the Building Official approved the plan
shown on Exhibit A. That plan did not show any pedestrian doorway on the first floor of
the house. The only pedestrian access was to the second floor reached by the stairway
that intrudes into the required setback. After inquiries were raised about approval of that
plan, it was amended on December 15, 2022 to include a door on the first floor, which
the Building Official is now claiming as the principal entrance. One might conclude that
the addition of this first-floor door was an attempt to rectify the mistake of granting a
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31b
3
permit for a stairway that violates the setback. But it does not solve the violations as
detailed above.
When there is a question about interpretation, good zoning practice looks to the intent
or purpose clause of the code for guidance. For setbacks, Section 14-2A-4.B.1.c. states
that the purpose is to, “Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in
the city's neighborhoods.” The proposed plan does not reflect the general building scale
and placement of structures in the RNS-12 zone or any single-family neighborhood in
the city. If you drive or walk through the neighborhoods of Iowa City, you will not find
examples of single-family houses with full-story stairways that intrude into the front yard
setback. If you do they are non-conforming or zoning violations.
The building permit for 319 N. Van Buren Street was issued by mistake and should be
revoked.
Robert Miklo
* Section d. appears in the single-family dimensional standards of the zoning code only
because the RNS-12 zone allows construction of multi-unit buildings when they are
being built to replace existing conforming multi-unit structures and therefore standards
are necessary to guide their construction.
Exhibit A: previously approved plan with no ground floor pedestrian access shown.
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31c
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31d
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31e
Added to packet April 10, 2023
31f
32
33
March 23, 2023
RE: Appeal regarding property at 319 N Van Buren
Dear Property Owner and/or Occupant:
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an appeal submitted by David Moore.
The appeal challenges a building permit extension issued for a single-family home at
319 N. Van Buren Street, alleging that the proposed building does not meet setback and
other requirements of city code.
As a neighboring property owner and/or occupant, you are being notified of this
application. If you know of any interested party who has not received a copy of this
letter, we would appreciate it if you would inform them of the pending application.
The Board of Adjustment will review this application at a public meeting tentatively
scheduled for April 12, 2023 at 5:15 p.m. Because the meeting is subject to change, you
may wish to call 319-356-5247 or check the City of Iowa City’s website,
www.icgov.org/BOA, the week of the meeting to confirm the meeting agenda.
You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning
this application. You may also submit written information to me for consideration in
advance of the meeting, and I will include your comments in the information to be
considered by the Board.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at klehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5247 if you
have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like
more information on the Board of Adjustment review process.
Sincerely,
Kirk Lehmann, AICP
Associate Planner, City of Iowa City
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
34
What is the Board of Adjustment?
The Board of Adjustment is panel made
up of Iowa City citizens appointed by
the City Council. The board reviews and
grants special exceptions and variances
and also considers appeals when there
is a disagreement about an
administrative zoning decision made by
the City. Members of the board act like
judges, making decisions about
individual properties and uses that may
have difficulty meeting a specific
zoning regulation or to resolve disputes
about administrative zoning decisions.
The actions and decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are binding upon all
parties unless overturned upon appeal
to District Court.
What is a special exception?
There are two types of special
exceptions.
1. Within the zoning code a number
of land uses are set apart as special
exceptions that may be permitted
in certain zones. Rather than
permitting these uses outright,
each is reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to ensure that they do not
negatively affect surrounding
properties. For example, daycare
centers are permitted in residential
zones by special exception. The
same is true of churches and private
schools. All may be appropriate
uses in residential zones, if certain
criteria such as parking, screening,
and other requirements are met.
2. Adjustments to specific zoning
requirements in cases where there
are unique circumstances. Again,
the opportunity to adjust these
requirements and the criteria for
allowing such adjustments are
described in the Zoning Code. For
example, a homeowner may apply
for a reduction in a building setback
in order to accommodate an
addition or other improvement to
their property.
The Zoning Code lists explicitly each
use and standard for which a special
exception may be considered. In other
words, you can’t request a special
exception for everything—only those
things called out as special exceptions
in the Code. The Code also provides
criteria specific to each request.
Applicants must provide evidence that
they satisfy each of these criteria, and
the Board must consider these criteria
when making a determination as to
whether to grant a special exception.
What is a variance?
A variance grants a legal right to an
owner to develop property in a manner
that deviates from a specific provision
of the Zoning Code and for which a
special exception is not expressly
allowed. In seeking relief from the
restrictions in the Zoning Code, the
property owner applying for the
variance must show that the strict
application of the Zoning Code would
cause and unnecessary hardship such
that the property in question is
unusable or that a literal interpretation
of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the zoning
district. In addition the circumstances
that create this hardship must be
unique to the property in question and
must not be of the property owner’s
own making.
What is an appeal?
The Board considers and rules on
appeals from any citizen who believes
there is an error in any decision,
determination, or interpretation made
by the City or its designee in the
administration of the Zoning Code. As
with their other decisions, the Board’s
ruling is binding on all parties unless
overturned on appeal to the District
Court.
How does the review process
work?
An application requesting a special
exception, variance, or an appeal is a
request. The Board makes a decision on
whether to grant a specific request only
after City staff have provided a review
of an application and the public has had
an opportunity to make its concerns
known. The Board not only has the right
to approve or deny requests, but may
also choose to approve request subject
to certain conditions.
In making decisions, the Board may only
consider comments and evidence
relevant to the specific standards
provided in the code. City Development
Staff provide reports to the Board for
each application on the agenda. The
Staff Report provides background
information on the application, informs
the Board of all the criteria in the Code
that a particular application must
satisfy, and interprets whether and
how an application has satisfied these
criteria.
How can I participate in the
process?
Because most applications will be
reviewed and decided upon at a single
public hearing, it is important for
interested parties to respond in a
timely and informed manner. Those
who wish to speak for or against an
application are given an opportunity to
be heard by the Board at the hearing,
but may also submit written comments
prior to the meeting.
Written comments must be delivered to
the Department of Neighborhood &
Development Services at City Hall no
later than 5 days before the hearing in
order to be included with the Staff
Report. All correspondence submitted
after that time will be delivered to the
Board at the time of the hearing.
The Board considers the application,
the recommendation of staff (in the
staff report) and any additional
information, correspondence, or
testimony provided at the hearing.
Board of Adjustment hearings are
usually held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J.
Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find
more information at the following
website: www.icgov.org/boa.
The Staff Report can be very useful to
anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA
process or with the Zoning Code and
will provide an understanding of the
criteria that the Board must consider in
rendering its decision. Staff Reports
may be obtained from the Department
of Neighborhood & Development
Services. E-mail klehmann@iowa-
city.org to request a copy of a report.
If you have questions about an
application or if you simply want more
information about issues related to the
Board of Adjustment, please feel free
to contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5247 or e-mail klehmann@iowa-
city.org.
To submit comments to the Board of
Adjustment write to the Board of
Adjustment c/o the Department of
Neighborhood & Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail klehmann@iowa-
city.org.
Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions
35
N
G
i
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
N
V
a
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
E Bloomington St
E Davenport St
appeal $id -
for a single-family home
͵ͳͻ .. 6 " 3, alleging the building
C CǤ
q APL23-0002
319 N Van Buren Street
0 "ǣ % "
$ 0ǣ - ʹͲʹ͵
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
36
37
38
Mailing Name Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code
MICHAEL T & KELLEY A MCLAUGHLI 1020 HIGHLAND PARK AVE CORALVILLE, IA 52241
STEVE V NASH 1113 PRAIRIE GRASS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52246
PRAIRIE CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO L 11910 16TH AVE SW CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52404
MALNICK LLC 1238 PHEASANT VALLEY ST IOWA CITY, IA 52246
KD PROPERTIES LLC 125 BICKFORD DR WEST BRANCH, IA 52358
SMITH-RUST PROPERTIES LLP 1317 ROCHESTER AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JULIA ELLA LEUPOLD REVOCABLE T 13515 253RD AVE SPIRIT LAKE, IA 51360
WALTER J & JANE A KOPSA 1514 CHURCHILL PL IOWA CITY, IA 52240
JOEL D & MELISSA C SCHINTLER 155 COLUMBIA DR IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KIM C & JULIE A DATERS 155 ROBLE RD SONORA, CA 95370
JAMES B & BECKY J BUXTON 1811 MUSCATINE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
YOUTH HOMES INC 1916 WATERFRONT DR IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OCCUPANT 210 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OSCAR C BEASLEY 211 N 1ST AVE APT 1 IOWA CITY, IA 52245-3643
OCCUPANT 214 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DENDRYS LLC 219 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DRAGONFLY PROPERTIES II LLC 220 LAFAYETTE ST STE 160 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
WAYNE L & KATHERINE G PETERSON 2238 BARNARD CT MOLINE, IL 61265
OCCUPANT 225 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MSL JCL, LC 228 WOOLF AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52246
TJ CUSTOM URBAN INVESTMENTS LL 2282 PETERS AVE NE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PUBLIC SPACE ONE INC 229 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 230 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 305 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 310 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH 310 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 311 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 314 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 315 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 315 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JASON D VARDAMAN 315 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
IDA SANTANA & PETER SPELTZ 317 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 317 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 318 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 318 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 319 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 319 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 319 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 320 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 320 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 321 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 322 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 322 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 323 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 324 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 324 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 325 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MARK MCCALLUM 326 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 327 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES DEV LLC 329 E COURT ST STE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES V LLC 329 E COURT ST STE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
E
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES IV LLC 329 E COURT ST STE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
MICHAEL N OLIVEIRA 329 E COURT ST STE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OCCUPANT 330 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 331 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 331 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 331 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MARY JANE CLAASSEN 332 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 332 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 332 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MARY ELLEN CHUDACEK 34 BEDFORD CT IOWA CITY, IA 52240
HOLZLAND LLC 3832 COUNTY DOWN LN NE NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
OCCUPANT 402 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 404 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 404 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 406 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ALAN DENBLEYKER 407 BROWN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 409 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 410 E MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
SHANNON A HEIMAN 410 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 411 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL J LENSING 411 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 411 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 412 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 413 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 414 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
322 E BLOOMINGTON LC 414 E MARKET ST IOWA CITY, 52245
OCCUPANT 414 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
BETH E GAUGER 414 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
SHAWN F COLBERT 415 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 415 N JOHNSON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 415 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
RALPH J SAVARESE 418 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 418 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
THOMAS R SCOTT 419 E FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL R HUBER 419 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ASHLEY J TUCKER 419 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 420 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 420 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 421 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL A LENSING 421 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 424 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 424 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JAMES H & LEANNE J DREIER 424 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DAVID MOORE 425 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OCCUPANT 425 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 426 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 430 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ADAM DREYFUSS GALLUZZO 430 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
VICTORIA A WALTON 430 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 430 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ANDREW J & LINDSEY R LITTON 430 PARK RD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
STEPHEN K & REBECCA L SMITH 431 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 432 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DON C & DOROTHY L FOWLES 4655 RUNNING DEER WOODS NE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
BLOOMINGTON STREET PROPERTIES 5 KIMBALL RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MERCY HOSPITAL 500 E MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
WYNN FEDDEMA 501 15TH ST #602 MOLINE, IL 61256
OCCUPANT 502 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 504 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DARLENE CLAUSEN 508 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 508 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 509 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
BLOOMINGTON BLDG PROPS LLC 510 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
STEVEN G & MARY L REICHARDT 512 DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MARLIN R INGALLS 515 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OCCUPANT 517 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 518 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 522 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
HOPE IRIS EDELMAN 522 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 523 FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OLIN L & FLORAINE LLOYD 5271 SIOUX AVE SE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
DAVID L ALBERHASKY 528 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 530 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
OCCUPANT 530 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ELISABETH JEWELL 607 E WASHINGTON ST MOUNT PLEASANT, IA 52641
JAMES C SHAW 718 KIMBALL AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52245
I C RENTALS LC 747 OAKLAND AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
JAMES J THIBODEAU 825 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
FIRST HAWK LLC 873 NORMANDY DR IOWA CITY, IA 52246
AUDITORS OFFICE 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 100 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
AUDITOR'S OFFICE 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
RICHARD E MASON 953 WEEBER ST IOWA CITY, IA 52246
REM PROPERTIES LC 953 WEEBER ST IOWA CITY, IA 52246
RONALD R COCHRAN PO BOX 2 WEST BRANCH, IA 52358-0002
US CELLULAR PO BOX 2629 ADDISON, TX 75001
OFFICE 414 LLC PO BOX 3047 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3047
ZJ-7 LLC PO BOX 3047 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3047
BL-1 LLC PO BOX 3047 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3047
F LLC PO BOX 3047 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3047
M322 LLC PO BOX 3049 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3049
406 NVB LLC PO BOX 3049 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-3049
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL23-0002
ATTACHMENT 5
Application Materials
Prepared by Appellant
42
Project Description:
The building official has issued a building permit extension for a project at 319 N Van Buren
Street that does not meet setback and other requirements of city code.
Decision Being Appealed: Appealing the extension of a building permit
Date of Decision: 01/17/2023
Title of Administrative Official Issuing Decision: Building Official (Development Services Coordinator)
Code Section Cited in Official’s Decision: Municipal Code 17-1-3
Purpose of Appeal:
To revoke the permit extension.
Appeal Request Summary:
The building official has issued a building permit extension for a project that does not meet
setback and other requirements of city code.
Remedy Desired:
To revoke the permit extension.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC23-0003
ITEM 4A ON THE AGENDA
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
54
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC23-0003
Parcel Number: 1002153001
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate
Planner Date: April 12, 2023
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Mark Holtkamp
A Latte Buzzness
4611 Timberland Ct NE
Solon, IA 52333
markholtkamp@yahoo.com
Contact Person: Brian Boelk
Axiom Consultants, LLC
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
bboelk@axiom-con.com
Property Owner: Greenstate Credit Union
2355 Landon Rd
North Liberty, IA 52317
Requested Action: Special exceptions for two accessory drive-through
facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
Purpose: To allow construction of a coffee shop with a drive-
through and a drive-through ATM
Location: South of N. Dodge Street and West of N. Scott
Boulevard
Location Map:
Size: 3.87 acres
DD
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant Land; Community Commercial Zone with a
Planned Overlay Development (OPD/CC-2) and Low
Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Planned
Overlay Development (OPD/RM-12)
Surrounding Land Use
and Zoning:
North: Residential; Rural Residential (RR-1) & Low Density
Single-Family Residential Zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
East: Institutional & Residential; Neighborhood Public Zone (P-
1)& Research Development Park (RDP)
South: Residential; Low Density Single-Family Residential Zone
with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
West: Institutional; Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
File Date: March 10, 2023
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Mark Holtkamp (A Latte Buzzness), is requesting two special exceptions to allow the
following on approximately 3.87 acres south of N. Dodge Street and west of N. Scott Boulevard:
1.To allow an accessory drive-through facility associated with a coffee shop in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone; and
2.To allow an accessory drive-through facility associated with an Automated Teller Machine
(ATM) in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
The subject property is currently vacant, but it was previously rezoned to a Commercial Office (CO-
1)zone in 2008 with the plans to construct a bank/office that was never built. The subject property
was rezoned again on March 21, 2023 (REZ22-0016) to approximately 2.04 acres of Community
Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) and approximately 1.83 acres Low-
Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12), which
is recorded in Book 6465, Page 701 in the office of the Johnson County Recorder. The approved
preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD) plan contains a coffee shop and mixed-use
building with 8 dwelling units on the north portion of the property, and 9 townhouses on the south
portion. The rezoning is subject to the following conditions:
1.Prior to the issuance of building permit, Owner shall:
a.Obtain approval of a landscape plan by the City Forester which includes the N. Dodge St
and Scott Blvd public right-of-way. Any trees within the public right-of-way that are removed
due to construction shall be replanted and located according to the approved landscape
plan.
b.Dedicate a public access easement over any pedestrian facilities adjacent to the Scott Blvd
public right-of-way that provide connectivity to public sidewalks.
2.Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall:
a.Install a right turn lane along Scott Blvd, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
b.Install a pedestrian crossing with a refuge island on the southside of Dubuque Rd and Scott
Blvd, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
D
3
3. No vehicular access shall be allowed onto N. Dodge Street.
Although the site is currently one lot, the approved preliminary OPD plan submitted with the rezoning
shows the 2.04 acres of the site zoned OPD/CC-2 being subdivided into two commercial lots. Per
the approved preliminary OPD plan, Lot 1 contains a coffee shop with a drive-through and a drive-
through ATM. Lot 2 is anticipated to contain a mixed use building in the future. Because it is also
zoned CC-2, the mixed use building will require a future special exception to allow multi-family uses
in the CC-2 zone. However, the applicant is not yet ready to proceed with that portion of the project.
These two lots would share a parking area as a tract, which would be built out at the same time as
the coffee shop and drive-through ATM. To the south, the approved preliminary OPD plan shows
the 1.83 acres of the site zoned OPD/RM-12 divided into Lots 3 through 11. These lots would
contain 9 attached single-family townhomes, which are allowed by right. Platting is required prior to
site plan approval, and staff anticipates a final plat application in the near future.
The submitted site plan (Attachment 4) shows that the development included as part of this
application consists of the coffee shop with a drive-through along N. Dodge Street, the drive-through
ATM, and the shared parking area. Surrounding uses include a mix of institutional and residential
uses. Attachments 1 and 2 include an aerial image and zoning exhibit.
Vehicular access to the subject property is provided from N. Scott Boulevard directly across from
N. Dubuque Road, and a right turn lane would be added to N. Scott Boulevard. Parking is split
between proposed Lots 1 and 2 with three east/west parking aisles and 2 north-south parking drives
providing circulation. The two drive-throughs would be open to one-way traffic beginning at the
western-most drive, arcing by the coffee shop and ATM, and exiting at the eastern-most drive. The
coffee shop drive-through would include an order board and pickup window, whereas the drive-
through ATM would only have a single ATM. In addition, a bypass lane is proposed parallel to the
coffee shop drive-through lane.
Pedestrian access is provided from one connection to the sidewalk along N. Dodge Street and
multiple connections along N. Scott Boulevard. A sidewalk is also provided through the site and to
the parking areas. A crossing from the subject property to N. Dubuque Road is also provided with
a refuge island in the middle of N. Scott Boulevard.
The property also contains sensitive areas, including critical slopes. City Council approved the
Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan in a Level II Sensitive Areas Review during the
rezoning. A Good Neighbor meeting was also held on October 6, 2022 as part of the rezoning.
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 exceptions if the requested actions are found to be in accordance with the
specific criteria included in Section 14-4C-2K-3, pertaining to special exceptions to allow drive
through facilities in a CC-2 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 are set forth below.
D
4
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
[Associated with Eating Establishment]
a. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the
area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on
traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian
safety in addition to the following criteria:
(1) Wherever possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access
drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may
impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting
the number of lanes, requiring the drive-through bays and stacking lanes to be
enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through associated with the coffee shop would be accessed
from a shared drive and not directly off N. Scott Boulevard.
• Access off N. Dodge Street is not allowed as a condition of the rezoning
(2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is
subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
FINDINGS:
• Access to the proposed commercial lots would be from a single curb cut on N.
Scott Boulevard that is aligned with N. Dubuque Road.
• The curb cut to access the subject property along N. Scott Boulevard will
maintain safe pedestrian movement in the same manner as the east side of N.
Scott Boulevard where the street is intersected by N. Dubuque Road.
• Staff will ensure all relevant standards are met during final plat and site plan review.
(3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is
recommended for drive-through facilities associated with eating establishments
and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar
nonfood related drive-through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as
being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The
board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant
can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that
the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through
that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows a single drive-through lane that passes by the order board
and pick-up window, in addition to a bypass lane.
D
5
• The site plan shows 6 stacking spaces in the drive-through lane which meets the
recommended minimum requirement for eating establishments.
• The parking aisle leading to the drive-through provides additional space to help
accommodate spillover traffic and minimize traffic safety impacts.
(4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance
areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan indicates directional arrows in the drive-through and parking areas,
directional signage for the drive-through and a ‘do not enter sign’ at the exit.
• The site plan shows that the pedestrian route is demarcated where it crosses
parking drives, which helps improve pedestrian safety.
• To ensure pedestrian safety, staff recommends as a condition of approval that
pedestrian routes be permanently demarcated using integral dyed concrete,
alternative paving materials, or other permanent methods.
b. Location:
(1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive-through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street-facing location is preferable for the overall safety and
efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access,
and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through and service window for the coffee shop are located
on a nonstreet-facing façade.
(2) Drive-through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot
lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design
standards below.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through is set back around 75 feet from N. Scott Boulevard
and N. Dodge Street and more than 30 feet from adjacent lot lines.
• Screening is provided as discussed below.
c. Design Standards: The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or
the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of
adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the
circumstances affecting the site.
DE
6
(1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking
space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan proposes one drive-through lane for pick-up and one bypass lane,
both of which are approximately 9 feet wide.
• The drive-through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened from
N. Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard by buildings and landscaping.
• With the condition recommended, pedestrian routes will be permanently
demarcated where they cross internal drives, which helps to ensure the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
(2) Drive-through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive-through
is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be
screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve
the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront
crossings district, the board may require the drive-through to be incorporated
within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping.
Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed
to complement the principal building on the site.
FINDINGS:
• Residential uses are located north of N. Dodge street, so the proposed drive-
through will be screened to the S3 standard by landscaping and the coffee shop.
• Institutional uses are located to the west, so the proposed drive-through is
screened by existing trees which exceed the S2 standard.
• Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zoning is located to the south, so
the proposed drive-through is screened to the S3 standard by landscaping.
• Institutional uses are located east of N. Scott Boulevard, so the proposed drive-
through is screened to the S2 standard by two layers of landscaping, one along
the street and one immediately adjacent to the parking area.
(3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling
on the site.
FINDINGS:
• Both an order board and pick-up window will be used to service the proposed
drive-through facility which will help reduce idling.
(4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive-through windows shall be located to
minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated
into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
7
• The drive-through is accessed from N. Scott Boulevard across from N. Dubuque
Road through a shared parking lot surrounded by a mix of proposed uses.
• The rezoning includes conditions that no vehicular access be provided from N.
Dodge Street and that a right turn lane be added to N. Scott Boulevard, which
helps to minimize the potential for vehicular conflicts.
• The drive-through facilities are clearly separated from the parking areas to avoid
vehicular conflicts.
• The rezoning requires a pedestrian island on N. Scott Boulevard and a
recommended condition would require a permanently demarcated pedestrian
route, which help minimize the potential for pedestrian conflicts.
• The drive-through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from N.
Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard by buildings and landscaping which helps
integrate it into the landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
(5) Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting
standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties.
FINDINGS:
• Staff will ensure lighting meets the City standards to prevent light trespass and
glare onto neighboring properties during site plan review.
6) (Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed
to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be
given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not
diminish the residential character of the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• The order board is oriented away from the adjacent right-of-way and proposed
multi-family uses anticipated in the future.
• The proposed order board is more than 200 feet from the nearest existing
residential uses and proposed attached single-family uses.
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
[Associated with Automated Teller Machine (ATM)]
a. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the
area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on
traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian
safety in addition to the following criteria:
(1) Wherever possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access
drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may
impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting
8
the number of lanes, requiring the drive-through bays and stacking lanes to be
enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through associated with the ATM would be accessed from a
shared drive and not directly off N. Scott Boulevard.
• Access off N. Dodge Street is not allowed as a condition of the rezoning
(2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is
subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
FINDINGS:
• Access to the proposed commercial lots would be from a single curb cut on N.
Scott Boulevard that is aligned with N. Dubuque Road.
• The curb cut to access the subject property along N. Scott Boulevard will
maintain safe pedestrian movement in the same manner as the east side of N.
Scott Boulevard where the street is intersected by N. Dubuque Road.
• Staff will ensure all relevant standards are met during final plat and site plan review.
(3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is
recommended for drive-through facilities associated with eating establishments
and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar
nonfood related drive-through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as
being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The
board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant
can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that
the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through
that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows a bypass lane that can be used by those waiting for the
ATM.
• The site plan shows 4 stacking spaces in the drive-through lane which meets the
recommended minimum requirement for banking establishments.
• The parking aisle leading to the drive-through provides additional space to help
accommodate spillover traffic and minimize traffic safety impacts.
(4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance
areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan indicates directional arrows in the drive-through and parking areas,
directional signage for the drive-through and a ‘do not enter sign’ at the exit.
• The site plan shows that the pedestrian route is demarcated where it crosses
parking drives, which helps improve pedestrian safety.
9
• To ensure pedestrian safety, staff recommends as a condition of approval that
pedestrian routes be permanently demarcated using integral dyed concrete,
alternative paving materials, or other permanent methods.
b. Location:
(1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive-through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street-facing location is preferable for the overall safety and
efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access,
and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through is located on a nonstreet-facing side of the ATM.
(2) Drive-through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot
lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design
standards below.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through is set back more than 90 feet from N. Scott
Boulevard and N. Dodge Street and more than 30 feet from adjacent lot lines.
• Screening is provided as discussed below.
c. Design Standards: The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or
the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of
adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the
circumstances affecting the site.
(1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking
space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows one drive-through lane for the ATM that is approximately 11
feet wide.
• The drive-through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened from
N. Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard by buildings and landscaping.
• With the condition recommended, pedestrian routes will be permanently
demarcated where they cross internal drives, which helps to ensure the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
10
(2) Drive-through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive-through
is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be
screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve
the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront
crossings district, the board may require the drive-through to be incorporated
within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping.
Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed
to complement the principal building on the site.
FINDINGS:
• Residential uses are located north of N. Dodge street, so the proposed drive-
through will be screened to the S3 standard by landscaping and the coffee shop.
• Institutional uses are located to the west, so the proposed drive-through is
screened by existing trees which exceed the S2 standard.
• Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zoning is located to the south, so
the proposed drive-through is screened to the S3 standard by landscaping.
• Institutional uses are located east of N. Scott Boulevard, so the proposed drive-
through is screened to the S2 standard by two layers of landscaping, one along
the street and one immediately adjacent to the parking area.
(3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling
on the site.
FINDINGS:
• ATMs have a relatively high through-put, so multiple machines are not necessary
to reduce the amount of idling onsite.
(4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive-through windows shall be located to
minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated
into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• The drive-through is accessed from N. Scott Boulevard across from N. Dubuque
Road through a shared parking lot surrounded by a mix of proposed uses.
• The rezoning includes a condition that no vehicular access be provided from N.
Dodge Street and that a right turn lane be added to N. Scott Boulevard, which
helps to minimize the potential for vehicular conflicts.
• The drive-through facilities are clearly separated from the parking areas to avoid
vehicular conflicts.
• The rezoning requires a pedestrian island on N. Scott Boulevard and a
recommended condition would require a permanently demarcated pedestrian
route, which help minimize the potential for pedestrian conflicts.
• The drive-through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from N.
Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard by buildings and landscaping which helps
integrate it into the landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
11
(5) Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting
standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties.
FINDINGS:
• Staff will ensure lighting meets the City standards to prevent light trespass and
glare onto neighboring properties during site plan review.
6) (Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed
to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be
given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not
diminish the residential character of the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• The ATM is oriented south, which is away from the adjacent right-of-way.
• The proposed ATM is more than 200 feet from the nearest existing residential
uses and proposed attached single-family uses.
General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements
[Associated with both proposed drive-through facilities]
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property did not receive waivers from the underlying zoning code in the
March 2023 rezoning.
• The proposed project incorporates attached single family, mixed use multi-family, and
commercial uses on a vacant infill parcel along one of the main entryways of the City
which provides a diversity of housing options and additional commercial services to
serve the surrounding residents and travelers.
• Vehicular traffic volumes will increase at the access on N. Scott Boulevard, but the
street has adequate capacity with improvements required as conditions of the rezoning
as discussed in more detail below under findings for the 5th general standard.
• Onsite vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate anticipated
users and drive-through traffic, and proposed signs and pavement markings will help
efficiently direct traffic.
• Pedestrian circulation is provided through the site, and with the condition as
recommended, pedestrian routes would be permanently demarcated where they cross
drives which will reduce conflicts and enhance pedestrian safety.
• The proposed right turn lane along N. Scott Boulevard will remove some existing trees
in the right-of-way, but those trees must be replaced as a condition of the rezoning to
provide an inviting streetscape and shade for users of the sidewalk and bike path.
• The proposed site plan will protect steep slopes in compliance with the Sensitive Areas
Development Plan approved during the rezoning in a Level II Sensitive Areas review.
D
12
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:
• The nearest neighbors to the north and to the east of the subject property will be
separated by N. Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard, will be screened according to
City standards, and will be set back at least 40 feet which helps minimize impacts.
• To the west, the subject property will be separated by existing woodlands.
• To the south, attached single family units will provide a transition from existing
detached single-family residential uses to commercial uses on the subject property.
• A condition of the rezoning prohibits vehicular access from N. Dodge Street, so
vehicular access would be exclusively from N. Scott Boulevard, which has adequate
capacity with improvements required as conditions of the rezoning as discussed in
more detail under findings for the 5th general standard.
• All exterior lights must meet the relevant standards within the zone which seek to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring properties.
• The proposed exception is not expected to affect the use, enjoyment, or values of
nearby uses any more that other development allowed within the zone.
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:
• Surrounding properties are mostly developed with multi-family townhouse-style
development to the north, City of Iowa City Fire Station 4 to the east, the Iowa City
Community School District Administration building to the west, and existing detached
single-family homes to the south.
• The proposed drive-through facilities are on the interior of the lot.
• Detached single-family homes to the south will be buffered by attached single-family
homes, while properties to the west are buffered by an existing wooded area, and
properties to the north and east are buffered by streets, enhanced setbacks, and
landscaping.
• A condition of the rezoning prohibits vehicular access from N. Dodge Street, so
vehicular access would be exclusively from N. Scott Boulevard, which has adequate
capacity with improvements required as conditions of the rezoning according to a
traffic impact study submitted during the rezoning process. The traffic impact study is
discussed in more detail in the 5th general standard.
• Future redevelopment and improvement of adjacent properties will not be affected by
the proposed exceptions.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property is an infill parcel surrounded by existing development.
• Sanitary sewer and water mains can service the subject property and have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
13
• Stormwater detention for the development is proposed in Outlot A.
• A condition of the rezoning prohibits vehicular access from N. Dodge Street, so
vehicular access would be exclusively from N. Scott Boulevard, which has adequate
capacity with improvements required as conditions of the rezoning according to a
traffic impact study submitted during the rezoning process. The traffic impact study is
discussed in more detail in the 5th general standard.
• The site contains adequate space for vehicular circulation and parking to
accommodate the use.
• Adequate pedestrian facilities are provided, and public access easements will be
dedicated for any pedestrian facilities along the N. Scott Boulevard right-of-way as a
condition of the rezoning.
• Staff will ensure the proposed development conforms with all applicable infrastructure
requirements during the subsequent final plat and site plan review.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• A traffic impact study was submitted during the rezoning which found that the proposed
development would provide acceptable levels of service during peak hours and that
the existing signal at N. Dodge Street and N. Scott Boulevard could continue to operate
acceptably if development occurred as proposed.
• The subject property would have access at one curb cut on N. Scott Boulevard, and
vehicular access is not allowed from N. Dodge Street as a condition of the rezoning
due to potential safety hazards. The traffic impact study noted that the proposed
access point was optimally located, spaced, and sized.
• Commercial lots will be accessed through the parking area behind principal buildings.
• The traffic impact study recommended installing a southeast-bound right-turn lane on
N. Scott Boulevard and a pedestrian facility with a refuge island across N. Scott
Boulevard at N. Dubuque Road, both of which were incorporated as conditions of the
rezoning.
• The traffic impact study determined that the proposed development with the right turn
lane and pedestrian crossing at N. Scott Boulevard would not increase traffic to the
point of overburdening the existing street system, and staff concurred with the
analysis.
• There is adequate space for stacking vehicles in the drive-through lanes, and
significant space for overflow stacking within the parking area without affecting traffic
congestion on public streets.
• Signage and pavement markings will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site.
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 site plan shows 10 parking spaces on Lot 1 which meets the minimum parking
requirements based on the proposed coffee shop, and 31 parking spaces on Lot 2,
which would meet the minimum parking requirements for the proposed mixed use
building with a restaurant and 8 one-bedroom apartments. If the mixed use building is
not constructed, the tract including Lots 1 and 2 would be substantially overparked.
14
• The site plan includes an area for bicycle parking.
• The proposed site plan will protect steep slopes in compliance with the Sensitive Areas
Development Plan approved during the rezoning in a Level II Sensitive Areas review.
• Staff will ensure the proposed development conforms with all applicable zoning
standards and regulations during the subsequent site plan and building permit review.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as public/private
open space on the Future Land Use Map, likely due to regulated slopes on the site.
• The Plan notes that neighborhood design principals should be considered when
interpreting the land use map, including that alternatives to single family development
may be appropriate at the intersection of a collector and an arterial, such as
neighborhood commercial or multi-family development.
• The proposed project supports several goals of the comprehensive plan including the
provision of quality, compatible infill, a diversity of housing types, and neighborhood
commercial areas within a walkable distance of other homes.
• The Northeast District Plan does not contemplate the subject property.
• City Council found the proposed project to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan
with the approval of a rezoning to Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) in March 2023.
• City Council approved a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan for impacts to
critical slopes through a Level II Sensitive Areas Review, which addresses the need
to protect sensitive features identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC23-0003 that allows a drive-through facility accessory to a
coffee shop and a drive-through facility accessory to an Automated Teller Machine in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for the property located at south of N. Dodge Street and
west of N. Scott Boulevard, subject to the condition that pedestrian routes shall be permanently
demarcated using integral dyed concrete, alternative paving materials, or other permanent
methods with designs as approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Correspondence
4. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC23-0003
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Prepared by Staff
69
N Dod
g
e
S
t
N
S
c
o
t
t
B
l
v
d
N
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
R
d
N
S
c
o
tt
B
lv
d
Hic kory
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
n
N
D
o
d ge St
N Dubuque Rd
- ( , "
Ǧ
ȋǦʹȌ
Ǧ Ǧ
Ǧ 4-ǡ ͵Ǥͺ . $ 3Ǥ
. 3 "Ǥ
q EXC23-0003
N. Dodge and Scott Blvd.
0 "ǣ % "
$ 0ǣ - ʹͲʹ͵
0 0.03 0.060.01 Miles
70
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC23-0003
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Prepared by Staff
71
CC2
RM12
P1
RDP
RR1
RS5
RS5
IDRS
P1
RM12
ORP
1DR
G
J
H
S
W
1
S
F
R
W
W
%
O
Y
G
1
D
X
E
X
T
X
H
R
G
1
S
F
R
WW
%
O
Y
G
+LFN R U\
+
H
L
J
K
W
V
/
Q
1
D
R
G JH SW
1DXEXTXHRG
An application submitted by Mark Holtkamp of A Latte Buzzness
for a special exception for two accessory drive-through facilities
in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to allow construction of
a mixed-use development with a coffee shop with a drive-through
and a drive-through ATM, for 3.87 acres south of N Dodge St. and
west of N Scott Blvd.
µEXC23-0003
N. Dodge and Scott Blvd.
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: March 2023
0 0.03 0.060.01 Miles
2
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC23-0003
ATTACHMENT 3
Correspondence
Submitted by the Identified Party
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC23-0003
ATTACHMENT 4
Special Exception Application
Submitted by the Applicant
80
Project Description:
This is a request for special exception in line with the recent rezoning by A Latte Buzzness for a
mixed use site plan at the southwest corner of N Dodge and N Scott. Such exception is required
due to request for drive-through and mixed use building.
5
0
.
1
7
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
3
9
.
7
8
'
3
9
.
4
9
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
8
8
.
0
4
'
85.96'
164.04'
1
7
7
.
0
6
'
5
0
.
2
8
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
3
.
4
6
'
3
9
.
4
8
'
3
9
.
7
2
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
3
.
5
0
'
2
2
.
8
7
'
164.03'
2
.
2
7
'
8
5
.
5
0
'
3
6
9
.
1
5
'
1
4
5
.
4
2
'
7
6
.
2
6
'
164.02'
164.01'
164.01'
164.01'
92.58
'
176.5
4
'
164.03'
164.03'
164.02'
6
9
.
4
6
'
N
1
3
°
0
6
'
2
0
"
W
1
7
5
.
9
3
'
N55°
0
3
'
4
0
"
E
2
0
8
.
0
4
'
90.10'
9
9
.
1
0
'
30.05'
1
8
.
0
0
'
124.68'
ST
SS
SS
W
750 755
760
765
77
0
768
769
771
7
4
0
7
4
5
7
5
0
7
5
5
7
6
0
765
3
8
9
10
11
OUTLOT (12)
2
7
4
5
6
1
0 25 50
OVERALL SITE PLAN
TIMBER VALLEY RUNIOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT LOCATION MAP:
(NOT TO SCALE)
PROJECT
LOCATION
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O BRIAN BOELK
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM
APPLICANT:
A LATTE BUZZNESS
C/O MARK HOLTKAMP
4611 TIMBERLAND CT NE
SOLON, IA 52333
319-594-1062
MARKHOLTKAMP@YAHOO.COM
OWNER:
GREENSTATE CREDIT UNION
C/O TIM RECK
2355 LANDON RD
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
319-899-3431
TIMRECK@GREENSTATE.ORG
HIGH
W
A
Y
1
/
N
D
O
D
G
E
S
T
N
S
C
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
N DUBUQUE RD
SITE INFORMATION
LOT SIZE
168,425 SF (3.87 ACRES)
PAVEMENT:48,952 SF (1.12 ACRES)
BUILDING:15,317 SF (0.35 ACRES)
MAXIMUM DENSITY = 15 DWELLING UNITS / ACRE
NET LAND AREA = 3.87 ACRES
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS = 17
PROPOSED DENSITY = 4.39 DWELLING UNITS / ACRE
EXISTING ZONING
COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE (CO-1)
PROPOSED ZONING
LOTS 1-2: OPD/CC-2
LOTS 3-12: OPD/RM-12
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
CC-2 RM-12
FRONT: 40'40'
SIDE: 0'0/10'
REAR: 0'20'
32'
59.5'
24'
36'
24'
4
0
'
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
KEYNOTES:
PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLA
B AGSCU KIOSK
B
5
6
12
13
NOTES:
1. PER 14-3A-4C-1a, THE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN 14-4B-4A-3
ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN RM-12 ZONES. THESE STANDARDS WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING
PERMIT.
2. A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT SHALL BE OBTAINED BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2 TO PROVIDE SHARED ACCESS.
3. ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY SHALL DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S PRIVATE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
(14-2A-4E) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
4. OUTLOT FOR GREEN SPACE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT
5
C SCOOTER'S ORDER BOARD
C
A
D BICYCLE PARKING
D
E STACKING SPACES. (6) FOR SCOOTERS AND
(4) FOR GSCU KIOSK.
E
20'
SHEET NUMBER:
SH
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
:
DR
A
W
I
N
G
L
O
G
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
:
RE
V
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
CL
I
E
N
T
N
A
M
E
:
WW
W
.
A
X
I
O
M
-
C
O
N
.
C
O
M
|
(
3
1
9
)
5
1
9
-
6
2
2
0
Apr 03, 2023 - 1:21pm S:\PROJECTS\2021\210216\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\210216 - PPDO.dwg
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
DE
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
:
1 OF 1
A
L
A
T
T
E
B
U
Z
Z
N
E
S
S
OV
E
R
A
L
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
TI
M
B
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
U
N
18
9
9
N
D
O
D
G
E
S
T
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
21
0
2
1
6
D
E
C
K
E
R
F 'DO NOT ENTER' SIGN
F
G DEMARKED PEDESTRIAN ROUTE THROUGH
ROADWAY
G
G
H SCOOTER'S DIRECTIONAL DRIVE-THRU SIGN
H
H
H
H
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
W
05-SJ
03-LP
03-LP
03-SJ
03-SJ
03-CA
04-CA
05-CA
08-CA
01-LT
01-LT
01-LT
01-LT
01-LT
01-CO
01-CO
01-CO
01-LT
01-CO
01-SM
03-SM
03-SM
06-SM
03-SM 06-SM
02-SJM 04-SM
03-LP
02-SJM
06-SJM 04-SJM 02-SJM
05-SJM
09-SM
10-CA
02-SR
01-SR
01-SR
05-SR 05-SR
06-LP
01-SR
03-LP 04-SJ 03-LP
01-SR
03-LP 04-SJ 03-LP
01-SR
03-LP 04-SJ 03-LP
01-SR
03-LP 04-SJ 03-LP
01-SR
04-SJ
01-SR
04-SJ
01-SM
08-CA
01-SR
03-SJ
04-CA
11-TM
11-TM
03-TM
03-TM
02-TM
01-TM
02-TM
01-SM
04-TM
18-CA
09-SJ
09-LP
04-SM
03-SM
05-SM
03-SM 02-SJM 03-SM
01-LT
01-LT
01-SR
02-SR 01-SR
37-TM
01-CO
02-TM
01-LT
02-SR
0 15 30
SHEET NUMBER:
SH
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
:
DR
A
W
I
N
G
L
O
G
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
:
RE
V
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
CL
I
E
N
T
N
A
M
E
:
WW
W
.
A
X
I
O
M
-
C
O
N
.
C
O
M
|
(
3
1
9
)
5
1
9
-
6
2
2
0
Apr 04, 2023 - 8:14am S:\PROJECTS\2021\210216\05 design\civil-survey\Sheets\210216 - Landscape Plan.dwg
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
DE
S
I
G
N
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
:
L1.00
A
L
A
T
T
E
B
U
Z
Z
N
E
S
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
TI
M
B
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
U
N
18
9
9
N
D
O
D
G
E
S
T
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
21
0
2
1
6
D
E
C
K
E
R
4
0
'
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
40
'
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
1
0
'
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY
(JAPANESE TREE LILAC)
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
ORNIMENTAL GRASSES
(KARL FOERSTER)
EVERGREEN SHRUB
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING IMPACTED TREE
EXISTING S-2 SCREENING TREE DRIPLINE
PROHIBITED PLANTING AREA
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
/
D
O
D
G
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
N SCOTT BOULEVARD
×
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
60 East Court Street #3, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
TIMBER VALLEY RUN
Special Exception
SPECIFIC CRITERIA (14-4B-3A): DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES
1. Access and Circulation
• The drive-through lanes are accessed via the parking lot and a shared cross access drive and not
from a primary street.
• No curb cuts are needed on the street for this requested drive-through.
• The minimum six (6) stacking spaces is provided as this is intended to serve a sit-down Scooter’s
Coffee establishment.
• Signage and pavement markings will be installed and utilized to property direct traffic to and from
the drive-through.
2. Location
• The drive through is located on the N Dodge Street side, which includes additional setback due to
arterial street. Adequate and substantial landscape screening is proposed between the drive-
through and the street.
• Aside from the setback, there are also easements along the north property line, resulting in the
drive-through lane being located nearly 80’ back from the property line.
3. Design Standards
• The number of drive through lanes and stacking area are design and intended to be built per City
Code minimum requirements and no more.
• Substantial landscaping and screening is to be provided between the drive-through and N. Dodge
Street as can be seen in the proposed landscaping plan. This screening consists of two tiers of
landscaping, including that along the north property line as well as around the building and drive-
through order board.
• An order board is located prior to the pick-up windows in order to alleviate and stacking issues or
concerns.
• Lighting and sound is in compliance and has been evaluated via a photometric assessment to limit
light trespass. In addition, the drive-through is strategically located adjacent to an arterial street
with no residential or neighborhood component next to it.
SPECIFIC CRITERIA (14-4B-3A): MULTI-FAMILY
1. Location
• The proposed dwelling units will be provided on the second level of the building, above the
commercial proposed for the first floor.
2. Maximum Density
• Density and parking are designed based on design standards and to meet the recently approved
zoning of OPD/CC-2. This includes all dimensional requirements as set forth in City Code.
3. Residential Entrances
P a g e | 2
• The proposed mixed use building depicts multiple exterior access points, providing safe access for
residents on the exterior. Such access points are to provide access to both the parking lot on the
west as well as sidewalk connections along N Scott Boulevard to the east.
• Access to dwellings units are to be provided via an enclosed lobby or corridor and stairway, or via
exterior fire egress on the west wall which exits the interior sidewalk and parking lot (not a street).
• The ground level floor height shall be designed to be no more than one foot (1’) above the level of
the abutting sidewalk.
4. Standards for Ground Level Floor of Building
• The ground level floor for commercial use shall have a ceiling height minimum of fourteen feet (14’)
and construction meet the building code specifications for commercial use at the time of
construction.
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
60 East Court Street #3, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
TIMBER VALLEY RUN
Special Exception
GENERAL CRITERIA (14-4B-3A):
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare.
The request for a drive-through and mixed-use building will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare of community. The drive-through is located strategically on site to
avoid any impacts to safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The mixed-use building is intended to provide
additional options for residents within the east side neighborhoods as per the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
The request for drive-through and mixed-use building will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not diminish or impair property values as it has been placed at the
furthest point from any residential neighborhood to the south and buffered by proposed multi-family living.
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.
The request for a drive-through and mixed-use building will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement on the surrounding properties. The project is developing an infill site within Iowa City that
has been difficult due to topography and site constraints. The mixed use and proposed commercial is a
perfect fit for this corner lot and provided amenities and residential options to the east side of Iowa City that
are in need and appear to be desired.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
The infrastructure for this project already exists. The existing street and sidewalk network can support this
proposed development. The city-owned utilities are adequately sized to service this building. The public
transit system will potentially benefit from increases in ridership and demand from the residents of this
building.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic
congestion on public streets.
A traffic study was completed, reviewed, and approved by the City of Iowa City traffic and engineering staff.
This study incorporated recent/current traffic counts and took into consideration the proposed uses. The
requirement of a right turn lane was noted by this study and agreed upon by City Staff. The proposed design
incorporates such right turn lane for southbound N. Scott Boulevard to help alleviate and traffic congestion
and allows for turning traffic to leave the through lane so no to impact or impede north to south traffic flow. In
addition, two access points were requested by City staff and have been provided in the proposed design.
One access point lines up across from the existing access to the City’s fire station, while the other is set
further south to allow for turning movements to be made so that stacking within the development is
minimized when exiting the site.
P a g e | 2
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.
Other than the request for the drive-through and mixed-use building, the project conforms with all other
regulations and standards of the OPD/CC-2 zone.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended.
The proposed drive-through and mixed-use building has been noted by Neighborhood and Development
Services (City staff) to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the city, as amended.
87
NAME ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP
ACT INC PO BOX 168 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-0168
ACT INC 2101 ACT CIR IOWA CITY, IA 52245
SHARON THIRTYACRE 1424 BRISTOL DR IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JEROME C & DAVID G MOSS 1851 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
SMILING DOG LLC 3051 BUCHMAYER BEND NE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
SMILING DOG LLC 1852 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ROBERT M LIPSIUS 1526 BRISTOL DR IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ROBERT M LIPSIUS TRUST 1820 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DOUGLAS E & BARBARA L PATRICK 1804 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
GREENSTATE CREDIT UNION PO BOX 800 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1725 N DODGE ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245
LINDA M BOWTON 5 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
NATHAN GENE VAN DER WEIDE 15 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E WASHIHGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240
CITY OF IOWA CITY 2008 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
HOUSING FELLOWSHIP (THE)322 E 2ND ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240
HOUSING FELLOWSHIP (THE)1896 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JAGADISH LAKSHMEGOWDA & SHARMI 4145 BARBARO AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
SHIVALINGAIAH, SHARMILA M & GOWDA, ANSHUL JAGADISH & LAKSHMEGOWDA, JAGADISH 1894 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
NEALEY C WHISLER 1892 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
FELISHA A JUNGE 5408 RIVER PKWY NE CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52411
WARNER PROPERTIES LLC 1890 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DOUGLAS ALLAN HLADEK JR 1888 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ACT INC 2150 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KEVIN J CRAWLEY 2030 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
AUDITOR'S OFFICE 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
VLADIMIR GUERRERO 668 RIVERSIDE DR #2D NEW YORK, NY 10031
GUERRERO, VLADIMIR 2040 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KEVIN J CRAWLEY 2030 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ACT INC 2041 N DUBUQUE RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
LYNCH, CASEY & SHANNON 10 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
BERNARD F & LISA M DUTCHIK 30 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ROBERT A BECK & ELIZABETH C TRACEY 40 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL D & ROSEMARY S MORRIS 48 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KENNETH E WILLIAMSON JR 49 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240
DANIEL E & LAURA M HYER 41 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
ABDULLAH A AL-WAHDANI 33 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL H & LESLIE L SCHRIER 25 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
RAMI BOUTROS & KRISTEN NELSON-BOUTROS 56 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MICHAEL & KELLY MESSINGHAM 64 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MARK RENSHAW 72 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245-9506
ANDREW C & MARY C HARTWIG 80 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
HANICK JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST 88 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KENNETH E & DIANE H WILLIAMSON 93 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KENNETH E & DIANE H WILLIAMSON 83 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
DYLAN & MIRIAM MURRAY 73 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
JAMES T MARRON & SARAH REINERTSEN 65 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
KENNETH E & DIANE H WILLIAMSON 57 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52245
E
LOT 2 OF PRESS-CITIZEN ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 43, PAGE 311 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 3.87 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
E
April 12, 2023
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA
March 8, 2023
Prepared by Staff
91
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
MARCH 8, 2023 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Bryce Parker (via zoom), Mark
Russo, Paula Swygard
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Nathan Peters
(providing independent legal counsel to the Board during the
appeal)
OTHERS PRESENT: James Phelps, Thomas Scesniak, Kristie Fortmann-Doser, Rob
Decker
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Carlson outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
Carlson nominated Swygard for Board Chair. Swygard declined.
Swygard nominated Baker for Board Chair. Baker declined.
Swygard moved to elect Carlson for Board Chair and Russo for Vice Chair. Baker
seconded and a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
APPEAL ITEM APL23-0001:
An appeal submitted by the Chi Omega Sorority House to overturn a decision of the Historic
Preservation Commission denying a Certificate of Appropriateness in a Conservation Overlay
(OCD) zone for window replacement at 804 Iowa Avenue: alleging that the decision did not
reasonably consider all the facts in the past history of improvements to the building.
Carlson opened the public hearing.
Lehmann noted they have Nathan Peters with Johnson County assisting as legal counsel for the
Board to avoid conflicts of interest using the City Attorney's office in this matter since it's a
decision by the City. He noted therefore he is only acting as the secretary of the Board.
Lehmann stated he would orient the Board on the location and the zoning and then the staff
92
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 2 of 26
presentation will be provided by Jessica Bristow, the historic preservation planner that staffs the
Historic Preservation Commission. Again, this is an appeal for the Chi Omega Sorority House
located at 804 Iowa Avenue, he showed an aerial of the location and stated this sorority house
is in central Iowa City, surrounded by residential uses, at the northeast corner of Iowa Avenue
and North Lucas Street. In terms of zoning, it is in a Conservation Overlay zone, with the base
zone of High Density Multifamily Residential or RM-44. There are other RM-44 uses to the north
and east and then there are neighborhood residential stabilization properties to the west and
south. Also to the west and south is the Conservation Overlay zone.
Bristow began the staff report by giving a bit of background on what the Historic Preservation
Commission does, the application process, and then how it was presented to the Commission.
First, there was the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 that started a national program
for historic preservation. That was followed by a State program, and eventually the certified local
government program in Iowa City in 1982. The Historic Preservation Commission was created
by local ordinance at that point and the Commission had the power to designate Historic
Districts that were covered by design review. By September 1995, the City had created a
Conservation District Overlay zone and for both of these programs, and for historic preservation
generally, they take guidance from the national program that is under the National Park Service
and through the State Historic Preservation Office. In Iowa City, they have eight local historic
districts and each of these Historic Districts are also listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. There are also five local Conservation Districts that are a local designation only, there's
no national component. Basically it is a neighborhood that is worthy of preservation but does not
have the historic integrity needed to make that neighborhood eligible for the National Register
and therefore to be a local Historic District. The City also has 65 individual local landmarks and
45 of those are listed in the National Register. Bristow shared an example of a Historic District,
Jefferson Street Historic District, noting it’s geographically cohesive, the boundaries tend to be
on alleys or streets, and it conveys a distinct sense of place and time. There's a high degree of
historic integrity and they often list them in the National Register first and then apply the local
designation. In the Jefferson Street Historic District, she noted the properties that are either key
or contributing and the rest of the properties are non-contributing and non-historic properties. In
this District there is one non-historic property and two non-contributing properties and that is
how that integrity is apparent in a historic district, that almost all the properties are contributing.
A Conservation District is similar but has a lower degree of historic integrity with a lot more
properties are non-historic and non-contributing, additionally the boundary is not quite as regular
as a Historic District, but it is still an overall neighborhood that is worthy of preservation. The
subject property is located in the College Hill Conservation District and is a contributing
resource within this overall District. Bristow stated part of the reason for the irregular boundaries
in this District is because it is surrounded by some Historic Districts. For instance, it is
surrounded by the East College Street Historic District and the College Green Historic District.
Bristow explained the goal of historic preservation and design review is to retain the historic
character of the neighborhoods. They do that by retaining the historic character of the individual
properties by retaining the original or historic materials. They also want to reduce landfill waste
and that's one of the reasons why Historic Preservation started back in 1966. Historic districts
and landmarks are an overlay zone and design review is triggered by the zoning code. If the
property is in an overlay zone, like a Historic District, Conservation District, or landmark, and the
project requires regulated permits, such as curb cut, building permit, sign permit, or demo
permit, and the work is on the exterior of a historic property, then historic review is required. In
addition, only some projects require a building permit and therefore historic review because they
93
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 3 of 26
are in an overlay zone and that includes the application of siding, window replacement, roof
replacement, street facing front door replacement and demolition of any part of a building. She
noted they did only start reviewing roofs and front doors in 2015 in Historic Districts.
Onto the subject property, again it is in the College Hill Conservation District, which was
designated in 2003. Bristow showed the only historic image they really have of the property,
which is the 1966 elevation drawing and front facade drawing from J. Bradley Rust who
designed an addition to the sorority. That drawing shows at that time 8-over-one windows
which is how they describe the double hung windows in the upper levels, there are also some
15-lite windows above the entry door, and then the windows that are currently on the building on
the first level. She showed a photo of the front facade and noted that at some point before the
formation of the Conservation District, the upper-level windows were replaced and only the
lower-level windows remain. There was one previous design review on this building in 2016,
where they did some work to the non-historic portion of the building and did replace some of the
non-historic windows and rearrange some things as well. This building has Tudor Revival
stylistic influences, with high gable peaks, stucco and half timbering, the multi-lite windows that
it had in the upper level and that it still has in the lower level, the brick on the facade at the first
level all are elements of the style of the sorority house.
In September 2022 Bristow met with Jeff Portman from Streamline Architects at the house at his
request as he wanted to discuss an upcoming project. At that point in time, they walked around
the south main facade of the house and around to the west side and discussed the windows in
general and how they are reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission. At that time,
they mentioned the fact that part of the potential project was to replace the windows, knowing
that a review would be a condition of that. They also went inside and reviewed the windows. At
that time it was felt they did not see any issues with condition, they left the meeting, and she did
not hear from them again. In December she heard from the interior designer, Sarah Campbell of
Whaley Campbell Design when she had called and asked about the approval for the window
replacement. Bristow explained she had met Mr. Portman on site and reviewed the windows
discussing the fact that they were not deteriorated and then nothing else had happened. Bristow
then explained to Campbell that she would have to apply for historic review explaining what they
wanted to do, staff would review the project, which involves first reviewing the history of the
building, then reviewing any past projects they had with the building, review the parts of the
application that are submitted, and then would comment on the project.
Bristow explained they have different levels of review. At one point, all applications for historic
review were reviewed by the full Historical Preservation Commission in a meeting. Then, they
brought in design review and created a minor review process which is reviewed just by staff.
The Commission has determined that a type of review that has been approved over and over in
the same way with the same conditions can be approved with a staff review. Window
replacement is something that can be approved that way, if the project meets all the conditions.
Bristow discussed with Campbell the fact that this project wouldn't meet those conditions and
would need to go to the entire Historical Preservation Commission for review. A few days later
an application was submitted. Bristow shared one of the drawings submitted and underlined the
fact that it includes to remove and replace an existing window on the back portion. She pointed
out the dividing line between the historic property and the 1966 addition and a window within
that 1966 addition. She pointed out the areas where they have removed the existing windows
and replaced with new windows on the site.
94
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 4 of 26
Bristow next shared with the Board the guidelines for historic review, which are included in the
Iowa City Historic Preservation handbook, and in the section for Windows 4.13 it begins with a
paragraph that talks about the fact that windows are one of the most important elements that
define a building's architectural character. It continues to talk about the elements of windows
that are important, and that the Commission recommends repair of historic windows before
replacement is considered and requires documentation of deterioration to approve replacement
of windows. Bristow explained when staff and the Commission are reviewing windows, the rest
of the guidelines they review, they aren't dealing with an attic window, so they skip that section
and move on to historic windows. The guidelines state preserving the historic windows by
repairing sashes and frames is recommended, retaining historic window frames and replacing
badly deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the historic ones and includes a handy
diagram of a window. The next page continues and then has replacement windows and the first
point is replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash,
width and trim and use of divided lights and overall appearance of the historic windows. The
guidelines do have a section which includes using new windows, noting the use of metal clad
solid wood windows is acceptable. Bristow shared the certificate of appropriateness that allows
staff to review windows, notes from the meeting in 2010 and the members who approved that
windows are pre-approved items eligible for minor review or staff review, meaning if the
following conditions are met, the applicant must demonstrate deterioration of the existing
windows, the new windows would be solid wood or metal clad solid wood, the guidelines about
how they need to match, and information about egress windows that don't relate. The
guidelines at that time listed brands or lines of windows that that could work and some of those
still work, some that were listed in 2010 have been removed. Bristow reiterated the applicant
must demonstrate deterioration of the existing windows and following that part of the review
staff knew they wouldn't be able to do this as a staff review and therefore put in on a Historical
Preservation Commission agenda.
Bristow and another staff member (a housing inspector who commonly reviews the condition of
windows) visited the property to photograph what they found. Bristow shared the photographs
with the Board, noting the group of windows to the west side of the front door appear to have
their existing trim in good condition. They have storm windows, as all historic windows have
storm windows as early on in Iowa City it was a common thing that all historic windows would
have a screen and storm window and what this house has are modern combination storm
windows and then just fixed storm windows. Through the storm window they could see that
there's what they call an 8-lite sash over a 1-lite sash because of how it's divided into little
panes. Bristow showed a photo from the inside noting the general condition of the windows are
good. She also showed the condition of the transoms from the windows on the east side of the
front door. They did notice some general cosmetic deterioration but when they're looking at a
window to determine whether it's deteriorated beyond repair and worthy of replacement there
are several things they look at. First, the windows are not considered deteriorated beyond
repair because they happen to be things that are regularly needed for maintenance including
any peeling paint, any chipping or peeling window putty as both of these things will dry out over
time and can be replaced. Broken glass also can be replaced as can broken sash cords,
missing sash weights, or windows that rattle or don't move easily in the sash is because they've
been painted shut or the stops are too loose or too tight. Bristow declared all of these are easily
repairable conditions. For the windows at this location, they did notice that the paint was
chipping, they could see that the windows had a historic varnish type of finish and the paint was
not adhered properly to that historic varnish. She noted that's the type of thing that would be
repaired by a painter using a proper paint that would adhere to the finish. They could also see
95
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 5 of 26
that these windows had been well cared for and rehabilitated over time, they had been weather
stripped with a T-shaped weather strip that fits within the frame of the window. The sash of the
window then is cut with a groove so that it rides up and down that T-shaped piece of metal and
that helps prevent air infiltration or exfiltration. There's also a piece of metal that helps to
prevent air from escaping between the sashes as well. Bristow showed a photo of one of the
south facing windows, pointing out that the interior sill is in good condition, it might need a little
touch up of paint, they can see that the exterior sill is also in good condition. She did
acknowledge the storm windows need to be replaced periodically over time, they're the
sacrificial element as they get all the weather, and so it is expected to replace a storm window.
They could see visibly that three windows had one sash cord that had also broken at one point
in time but again, that is something that would be repaired during a typical window rehabilitation.
She also pointed out most of the sash cords had been painted slightly at one point in time so it
would be recommended to just replace all of them at that time. Next she showed one of the
west facing windows under a little covered porch and another west facing window both in good
condition. They did notice that some of the window trim had been pulling away a little bit from
the wall and that can be a symptom of maybe some moisture in the wall itself or maybe dryness
in the room causing the paint to crack. It is in the trim, which is separate from the window itself
and has no impact on the window. She showed another example of where some wallpaper near
a window has also cracked, again likely due to dryness.
The Historical Preservation Commission met and the case was presented to them. The owner
and architect also spoke and the Commission denied the certificate of appropriateness.
Because there were a couple elements that could be approved the Commission also did an
alternative certificate of appropriateness so that the project could move forward and both of
those were included in the Board’s agenda packet. The denial denies the entire application, the
alternative certificate of appropriateness that was approved is the replacement of that one non-
historic window that was on the back of the 1966 edition. It also approved the repair of all of the
historic windows so they did know that they could move forward with that repair as well.
Baker asked for clarification on two issues, one is the issue of precedent when the upper-level
windows were replaced, do they know when that was. Bristow did not know but the owner
might, Bristow knew it was done before the creation of the Conservation District. Baker noted
since there was no formal historical review process they would have had to just follow City
building codes. Bristow noted window replacement is only required to have either a building
permit or historic review when it is in a designated district and so prior to the formation of the
district, that review and building permit would not have been required. Therefore, Baker noted
the issue of precedent, in his opinion, doesn't really apply in this case, because the whole
process would be different, past and present. Bristow agreed and stated because the upper-
level windows were replaced, that does not impact the review of the lower-level windows,
because they are still an important part of the historic character. In addition, if this owner were to
come to the Commission in the future, to replace those modern windows, the Commission's
preference would be to have those modern windows match the historic windows, because they
don't currently and need that divided light pattern.
Baker asked in the original review of the property, Bristow and the architect for the applicant
both agreed that the deterioration was not sufficient to justify replacement. Bristow stated she
can't speak for him, but she came away feeling that neither of them saw deterioration, and that
an application would not be submitted because replacement was not warranted.
96
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 6 of 26
Carlson asked Bristow to define how they determine deterioration. Bristow stated generally for
a window to be deteriorated, in order to be replaced, they are looking for wood that is rotten or
broken to the point where the wood itself would need to be replaced but that's where they
provide leniency in the fact that having someone who has the skills to replace the wood
elements on the window requires a bit more skill. The other things require less skill. Bristow
acknowledged they do allow replacement when needed, in most cases, because everything is
reviewed on a case by case basis, if the wood is rotten. If they are talking about a landmark
property on an important window, that maybe did not have a typical configuration, maybe it was
an odd shape, or had an intricate design, they might want to have that window repaired instead
of replaced, especially if it wasn't possible to match it. The approvals for windows when they are
deteriorated beyond repair also requires that the replacement window matches.
Carlson asked if the difference in deterioration would be that they would consider a deteriorated
window if it would require special knowledge to repair it such as having to find someone who
knew how to do wood millwork or something like that rather than the average person who ran a
company would be able to do the work without any problem. Bristow agreed it is true that most
of the repair work could be done by a typical handyman, they would ideally need to have special
tools and the right products but yes it would require someone who had experience with millwork
or woodworking to replace the wood elements and would require more skill.
Russo questioned when the Conservation District was established, or even the legislation of the
ordinance that established the Historic District, was there any consideration that anything could
be grandfathered in and therefore exempt a project from this review. Bristow stated all property
within the boundary of all districts require review. She noted there are exceptions in the
guidelines that allow for a different approach for properties that might be non-historic or
sometimes non-contributing as well. For instance, in the same district there's another sorority
house that replaced all its windows with vinyl windows prior to the formation of the district. In the
City’s guidelines, generally vinyl windows are not approvable but there is an exception that
allows for a property that has had all its windows, every single one of them, replaced with vinyl
in the past that they can continue to replace them with vinyl, on and on throughout the future in
a Conservation District. But otherwise, the facts say that these upper-level windows had been
replaced before the formation of the Conservation District, they are grandfathered in and only if
the owner deems they need to be replaced would they need to replace them following the
guidelines, the Commission would not come through and say these windows don't match the
historic ones and they need to replace them now. The building itself would still need to follow
the guidelines of a Conservation District. Bristow reiterated a Conservation District exists
because the City deems that neighborhood worthy of preservation and the goal with the
Conservation District is that maybe some of the things that have happened to the neighborhood
that made properties non-contributing, such as removal of porches and replacement siding, over
time could be undone by following the guidelines, and that neighborhood could eventually
achieve status of a historic district. That's part of the point is to save and to hopefully regain
historic character that has been lost.
Russo asked regarding his second question was there any consideration in this legislation given
to relative costs or is that ever a consideration. Bristow replied Section 2.8 of the guidelines
includes a section where an applicant can appeal for a certificate of economic hardship and
there's a process to that. Bristow cannot recall anyone who has applied for that in the history of
the Commission.
97
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 7 of 26
Russo asked with the Pella windows that they're proposing here, would they meet historic
standards. Bristow replied with the exception of the windows on either side of the front door. If
the windows had been deteriorated, the windows submitted would have been approvable.
Russo noted the architect states that the goal is easier maintenance as tilt-in windows can be
easily cleaned and have better sound and thermal insulation. Were these considerations
brought to the City’s attention at the get go and what's the reason for the replacement, were
there other considerations presented. Bristow stated she didn’t have the wording of the
application before her, but noted it included a simple one-line statement that said they wanted to
replace them and there wasn't a reason given. She stated historic windows with a storm
window can be equally as energy efficient as a modern window, they have an airspace, they do
not have a sealed insulated glass unit, so that airspace won't fail over time. A historic window
can be repaired indefinitely and never needs to be replaced or go to the landfill whereas all
modern windows will eventually fail, whether it is the joints in the construction of the frame, the
sash or the insulated glass unit, and so something will always need to be replaced.
Baker noted the word that always is applied to the word deterioration is documented
deterioration, is there a legal definition or does that require some sort of outside professional
certification or is that just simply the subjective opinion of this looks deteriorated. Did the
applicant submit any kind of documented deterioration. Bristow replied the applicant did not
submit any documented deterioration and for these purposes that generally means photographs
of the deterioration. They have staff review those windows but will also accept the professional
opinion of a person who professionally repairs windows as a regular part of their business. They
would not accept the professional opinion of someone who cannot personally repair windows.
James Phelps (Architect, Streamline Architects) has been working with Chi Omega. Bristow had
mentioned meeting with Jeff Portman earlier and the reason Phelps is here is because Portman
is no longer with the company. Phelps noted he worked with Portman from the beginning on this
project so he is familiar with it. He stated it is quite a process that they have to apply and go
through the Historic Commission. First, he wants to say he is by no means against historic
preservation, he is all for it and works on historic projects quite often. He has however worked
with many homeowners that absolutely hate this whole process and thinks that's important to
know and it's mainly because of the little rules and regulations that they have to go through like
this and so a lot of people just won't do that and go through that process. In this case he was
the architect on the 2016 project as well and had gone through some window replacement there
and alterations to the back side, noting again only a portion of the building is under the historic
overlay. He believes the upper windows were replaced in the 1990s. Phelps stated the main
thing here is that as they were looking at the windows, they noted some of them aren't perfect,
no one is arguing that, but from their side they're in terrible shape and deteriorating. The idea of
replacing them came about as one of the huge considerations was the maintenance of just
cleaning, cleaning a newer window with a tilt sash, any one of them can come in and rip the
lower the sash down, tilt it in, and wipe it clean and put it back very easy. He believes the lower
windows now have the combination storms, he has combination storms on his own 1924 house,
and they are an absolute nightmare to clean, twice the pains of having to clean and if you can
get to them even on the inside that's tricky, or you're removing them to get them all clean. So
that was a huge factor in looking at windows and trying to make it easier for the future. He noted
there are paint issues, that some of the cords are missing, the counterweights and stuff like that.
Phelps acknowledged the City had given them a list of “qualified window repair experts” and he
called quite a few of them, he had three of them return his call. One of them said that they
98
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 8 of 26
wouldn't do the work, the others reiterated some of the paint issues and said they would prefer
to remove and restore the window. So both said that they would probably have to remove the
window, examine and refinish it, and then bring it back and put it in. Out of those two companies
they got very rough estimates of somewhere around $1,000 a window to over $4,000 a window.
Phelps noted cost isn't really the biggest issue here but it can be a factor. He acknowledged one
of the things that they looked at is that they wanted to maintain the historic integrity of this
building and did not consider anything cheap like vinyl or anything like that. They looked at the
top of the line Pella windows that have the divided lights, the mount bars in there, and wanted to
maintain that look. So this window would allow the building to look almost identical, the main
difference is that it's a clad window. It's still a wood window, but it's an aluminum cladding that
protects the wood and by doing that it eliminates the storm window or combination storm.
Phelps showed a photo of where they’re proposing to replace the windows. They think it's a
reasonable request here considering that over 20 windows in that area of the home have
already been replaced and they're not even replacing it with the same ones that were replaced
back in the 1990s. Again, they’re going with the top of the line Pella architects style and very
appropriate for this building.
Baker asked with contractors they called, did they all come out and actually look at the windows.
Phelps replied they did not, they were basing their estimates on the pictures he sent. Baker
acknowledged they have legitimate cost concerns that repairing the windows would cost more
than buying completely new Pella windows. Phelps replied that would need to be determined,
one rough estimate was around $1,000 per window and the windows that they'd be getting from
Pella would be over $1,000. A separate contractor looked at the same material and his quote
was over $4,000 a window.
Baker asked assuming they could replace the windows, one of the concerns he thinks staff had
was the compatibility wouldn't quite match. Would what they put in there would be as
compatible as possible with the original historic concept design. Phelps replied they believe yes.
He stated compared to the upper windows those were replaced without the same divided light
configuration and are not 8 over ones, and they probably should have been. What they are
proposing in the window replacement would be an 8 over one, and it would match what the
house has now.
Russo asked if what they are seeking is for this Board to essentially overturn the decision of the
Historical Preservation Commission and wondered what precedent will have for other projects in
an overlay Conservation District. Phelps stated for them, the precedent is that it's already been
done on this house, yes it was done before an overlay was ever inserted here, but the fact is it's
still the same house and they’re talking about the same windows. They're talking about the
same part of the house, over 20 windows have already been replaced on that end of the
building, and now they just want to finish the process. He did acknowledge since there is this
historic process here they want to honor that with historic looking windows and keeping with the
divided lights and a very high quality wood window.
Russo noted they applicant obviously disagrees with the decision of the Commission but is
there something that they can point to that was done erroneously on the part of the Commission
or is this just because it didn't work out in your favor. He noted this Board’s purview is limited
and they have to show that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or they just
ignored the law. Russo stated the law is pretty clear on this, it’s succinct and detailed. Phelps
replied they feel that the fact that the precedent was set already with the 20 plus windows being
99
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 9 of 26
done already is what should allow them to finish this process. He understands the guidelines,
but there's a sense of right and wrong here and what the sorority building owners are requesting
is reasonable here and they're still trying to honor the historic look.
Russo stated if everything is equal at the end, and the windows are rebuilt and they work
perfectly, is the issue really just that of maintenance and ease of being able to clean. That
seems like a marginal goal to sacrifice the integrity of the lower half of this building. Phelps
replied he doesn’t believe that it is sacrificing anything. In terms of what that does for ease of
maintenance for the owner, like he said, he has a 1924 house and is in the process of switching
out his windows right now because of it. He has 33 of them to do and is doing something
similar with a matching historic looking window because that's the style of the house.
Russo noted studies have shown that a good storm or a well-maintained double hung window
has a thermal efficiency equivalent to a newer window. He agrees with the issue of ease of
maintenance, but that may be a slippery slope with this argument. Phelps reiterated whenever
anyone is requesting a change in a historic area like this, the solution must honor the historic
look and they are doing that. Russo noted he has been involved in construction for many years,
especially on historic structures and the idea of historic preservation was to keep old structures.
He stated they can put windows in that look like the old windows but that's not historic
preservation and is asking Phelps to give him an argument that I can sink his teeth into because
so far he’s not convinced.
Carlson asked if they put these replacement windows in, how long will they last, because if one
of the concerns is the expense of redoing these windows versus putting in new windows, how
long have these windows been here and how much money has been spent to keep them up to
this point. How long will new windows last and when will they have to replace them again.
Maybe if they have to replace these windows every so many years it may be cheaper to just
redo these windows. Phelps doesn’t have an answer to that but he trusts the newer windows
that they've asked for, they’ve put them in many projects.
Russo discussed the Board’s role in this review, acknowledging they have a very limited role or
review. He noted a lot of this discussion is just background and informational and so far he
hasn’t seen evidence that suggests that the Historical Preservation Commission has skirted
their review process or been arbitrary, it seems they've been very thorough. Perhaps the
solution is to look at changing the ordinance but this Board is not here to say that this is right or
wrong, they're here to say that the either the Commission followed its guidelines or it didn't.
Baker noted this whole issue comes back down to this definition of deterioration and seeing no
evidence to dispute the original opinion that the windows have not deteriorated enough to
require the replacement. However, if this Board does think the deterioration justifies the
replacement isn't it still possible that the new window replacement would actually fit in with the
historic design and this is not a question of finding the right replacement, it is finding a
justification for the replacement. Bristow confirmed yes, there were two windows that were
submitted as part of the application, those that go on either side of the front door, that did not
match the existing configuration that does match the historic drawing. The proposal was
replacing those with a one solid area of glass instead of with windows that were divided into 15
little areas of glass. So those two windows would not meet the guidelines as far as matching
what they assume to be the historic configuration of the windows. So those two windows could
not have been replaced with the ones that were proposed if they were deteriorated.
100
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 10 of 26
Baker noted if the windows had to be replaced, they are obligated to approve something close
to compatible. Bristow stated the windows they submitted for the double hung windows with the
transom above that are on the front, the groups of three on each side and then the double hung
windows that the two individual windows on the sides of the building did match so they could
have been approved. If the windows on either side of the door were deteriorated as part of the
approval process, they would have then spoken to the applicant and told them they agree they
are deteriorated however, those two windows don't follow the guidelines and would suggest that
they find a window that follows the guidelines. Bristow stated they don’t just approve or deny
applications, they will work with the applicant to come up with something approvable.
Russo asked about the other sorority house that had replaced all their windows with vinyl
windows and if they were going to replace their windows again, or replace certain windows, they
wouldn't be allowed to use vinyl windows again. How is that different from this. Bristow replied
that sorority replaced all their windows with vinyl windows prior to the formation of the District so
it never went under review. Now because that sorority is also within a Conservation District like
this one, there's an exception in the guidelines that says that when those windows that are vinyl,
and all of the windows on the building are vinyl, when those are deteriorated, they can replace
those windows with more vinyl windows. So that exception only exists within a Conservation
District when the windows have already been replaced on the building before the formation of
the District since otherwise vinyl windows are not approvable.
Russo asked if the language of the law refers to a project of windows in totality, or a percentage
of the windows. He noted the issue here is that 20 plus windows were already replaced so
there's some architectural precedent already established by the upper story windows. Bristow
stated the ones that were replaced don't actually set a precedent in this type of case because it
doesn't meet one of the exceptions. The actual exception applies to either non-contributing and
non-historic properties in a Historic District or it applies to all properties in a Conservation
District and it's regarding new and replacement windows, and it says vinyl or vinyl clad wood
windows may be considered for primary buildings, if existing windows are vinyl or vinyl clad
wood. Russo asked then they are subject to the same standards of deterioration. Bristow
agreed and noted there is not a guarantee of approval, if that property would be deemed
appropriate, maybe it's a key property, it still might not be approved by the Commission, all
properties are reviewed individually and whether an exception is applied depends on the historic
character of that the building, the importance of the building, its classification in the district as
well as the ability to get something that would match and stuff like that.
Carlson closed the public hearing.
Swygard moved to approve APL23-0001 an appeal submitted by the Chi Omega Sorority
House to overturn a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission denying a
Certificate of Appropriateness in a Conservation Overlay (OCD) zone for window
replacement at 804 Iowa Avenue: alleging that the decision did not reasonably consider
all the facts in the past history of improvements to the building.
Baker seconded the motion.
Carlson stated personally she thinks the process has been followed, the process was clear to
the applicant, they had opportunity to repudiate the decision on deterioration and they didn't
provide any documentation contrary to that. The overlay was done in 2003 and the precedent
101
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 11 of 26
that they keep referring to was prior to that, so personally she doesn’t think that has any bearing
on the current decision.
Baker agrees and has no doubt that if these windows needed to be replaced because of true
deterioration, that developer, the applicant, and staff could come up with an appropriate window
that might not be what's in front of them now. He just did not hear a compelling reason to
reverse the decision of the staff. The deterioration is a matter of just opinion right now, and not
documentation and the staff and Commission very narrowly followed the guidelines that they
had, and this Board now has to follow them as well.
Russo agrees with Baker, he was looking for something to sink his teeth into, some error or
some wrongdoing in the review process. Additionally, he thinks the review process was done
very thoroughly. Understandably, it wasn't the decision the applicant wanted but that doesn't
mean that the decision or the review process was flawed. This appeal stated that the decision
did not reasonably consider all the facts in the past history of improvements to the building.
Again, that may or may not be the case but if that's the argument that's not the responsibility of
the present Historical Preservation Commission, maybe there should be something in the local
ordinance that examines a situation like this where much of the building was remodeled prior to
the historic establishment of that ordinance. But at this stage, he has to say that the little window
of their review tells him that there's not enough to overcome that decision.
Carlson stated right now they need to look at the law as it is now, not as they would like it to be,
or as it was in 1996 or as it might be in 2030. It's what they have before them right now as to
what they need to look at. They also need to make sure that they uphold that law if they did not
do that, they are not acting in a reasonable manner.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-5. The decision of the Historic Preservation
Commission stands.
Carlson stated the motion declared denied, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office.
Peters noted an appeal from here would be the District Court.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC23-0001:
An application submitted by JAM Investments of Iowa City requesting a special exception to
allow a new drive-through facility associated with an eating establishment in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1926 Keokuk Street.
Carlson opened the public hearing.
Lehmann stated this exception is for a drive-through at 1926 Keokuk Street which is part of the
Pepperwood Plaza commercial area at the former Pizza Hut site which had a drive-through. He
noted this came before the Board previously in 2021 and the Board recently extended that
approval which was to use the existing drive-through and building. However, this proposal is to
remove the building and construct a new building and put in a new drive-through that is
conforming rather than using the existing one that doesn't currently comply with standards.
Access to the property is through the Pepperwood Plaza tract. It has access to Keokuk Street to
102
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 12 of 26
the west, Highway 6 to the north, and Broadway Street to the east. The subject property is
surrounded by commercial uses and the zoning reflects that with Community Commercial,
which is used for a large variety of retail uses that serves the community. In terms of the site
itself, the lot is about 26,000 square feet. Pedestrian access to the site is to the Keokuk Steet
right-of-way along the west property line along with the sidewalk and access directly to the
north. There's also a pedestrian route on the east property line that connects into the rest of the
pedestrian network within Pepperwood Plaza.
Approval of the exception would allow a new building and a new conforming drive-through. The
applicant is proposing a Popeyes Chicken eating establishment of approximately 2600 square
feet in the center of the site. They're maintaining parking to the north and still showing the drive-
through lanes to the west, the main difference is that they're adding a bypass lane. By
expanding this use, it can no longer be non-conforming and so they're bringing it into
compliance with current standards. This application would essentially replace EXC22-0004 that
this Board previously approved on June 8, 2022. Lehmann reiterated getting rid of the building
and non-conforming use means that all non-conforming development must be brought up to
current standards.
Lehmann next shared the site plan noting again there's parking the north, the major changes
being that the drive-through is now set back 10 feet from the property line which allows a
setback that's compliant with current standards. It also allows screening that is compliant with
current standards between the drive-through and that property line. It is a wider drive through,
so it has two order lanes that join into a single pickup lane, with pickup point still on the south
side of building. They added a bypass lane as well. Parking remains similar. Another change to
a non-conforming component is there was parking that was provided off a drive on the
southeast portion of the property and that is proposed to be removed and they still have
adequate parking as a result. Some other changes are landscaping, they can fulfill their
screening requirements to be conforming and they're also adding in street trees that would
comply with current standards. The landscaping plan was submitted as part of the application.
The role of the Board of Adjustment tonight is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application based on the facts presented. To approve a special exception, all the applicable
approval criteria must be met which includes specific standards pertaining to the waiver
requested, in this case the drive-through, and general standards that apply to all special
exceptions.
Lehmann stated there are quite a few standards related to drive-through facilities in the code.
The first set of standards is related to access and circulation, making sure that it can safely
support the proposed drive-through in addition to existing uses in the area. The first
substandard being wherever possible and practical the drive-through lane shall be accessed
from secondary streets, alleys or shared cross access drives. In this case, access to the
property is through the Pepperwood Plaza tract through internal drives that connects to Keokuk
Street, Highway 6 and Broadway Streets and the proposed drive-through itself is accessed
through the parking on the property and therefore staff believes that this standard is met as it
cannot be directly accessed from the street.
Second, is to provide for safe pedestrian movements, the number of and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. In this case there are no proposed curb cuts on public streets as
part of the project, so this standard is met.
103
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 13 of 26
Third, an adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not
compromised. The minimum recommended is six stacking spaces and in this case they have
two order lanes that converge into one pickup lane and that pickup lane has seven stacking
spaces, so it exceeds that minimum recommendation. In addition, the parking aisle has some
additional space to accommodate spillover traffic, which would minimize traffic safety impacts.
Fourth, sufficient on-site signage and pavement markings must be provided to indicate direction
of travel, pedestrian crossing, stop signs etc. The site plan shows directional arrows in the drive-
through in the parking areas and it has a Do Not Enter sign at the drive-through exit. In addition,
with regards to pedestrian safety, the pedestrian route on the subject property is demarcated
with dyed concrete across the parking aisle, so that helps and directs traffic as well and staff
feels that criterion is met.
The next set of standards are related to the location of the drive-through facilities. The first
substandard is that the drive-through lanes and service windows must be on a non-street facing
facade or the applicant must demonstrate that a street facing location is preferable with some
standards associated with that. In this case, the proposed drive-through will replace an existing
non-conforming drive-through on the Keokuk Street facing facade of the building and will not be
on a non-street facing façade, it’s on a street facing facade. However, the proposed drive-
through doesn't affect pedestrian access and it is set back 10 feet from the Keokuk Street right-
of-way and that allows new screening on the property and new street trees which help provide
consistency with typical commercial streetscapes. In addition, the drive-through is consistent
with adjacent commercial uses and doesn't really alter the character of the area. The added
screening will help minimize impacts on surrounding development and the pedestrian
environment. Based on that, staff believes this criterion is met.
Second, it must be set back 10 feet and it is and there is screening provided so this standard is
met as well.
Next are the design standards regarding the number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces,
paved areas, and their effect on surrounding properties. The first substandard is to promote
compatibility with surrounding developments, the number of drive-through lanes should be
limited to not diminish the design quality of streetscape or safety of the pedestrian environment.
Again, the two drive-through lanes converge to a single pickup lane and there's a 12-foot
bypass lane as well. Both of those are along the west edge of property, and the property is in an
auto oriented commercial district. Additionally, the drive-through replaces an existing non-
conforming drive-through that is closer to the property line and provides less screening so with
the setback and additional screening it will help minimize impacts to surrounding properties and
the pedestrian environment.
Second is that it shall be screened to the S2 standard from surrounding land uses and if it's
near residential than it has a higher standard. In this case, they are showing S2 screening from
Keokuk Street and there are no adjacent residential uses. As far as to the north and east of the
subject property, it is a single tract, so screening isn't required along those property lines. Staff
believes this standard is met.
Third is that multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane should be considered to reduce
idling. In this case, they have two kiosks for ordering and a single window for payment and
pickup. They looked at other options but this worked best, so staff finds this criterion to be met.
104
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 14 of 26
Fourth is that the stacking spaces, driveway and drive-through windows are located to minimize
vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into this the streetscape and the
neighborhood. In this case, no new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created. There may
be some conflicts where the drive-through will exit onto the internal drives but it's similar to
what's there currently and there is adequate room to maneuver, traffic speeds in the area are
slow, traffic volumes should be relatively low, and visibility is good so staff doesn't believe it that
would create substantial issue. And again, the drive-through replaces and existing drive-through
and those landscaping elements will help integrate it with the surrounding streetscape as well.
Fifth is that lighting must comply with the outdoor lighting standards in the City code. Lehmann
explained those are typically reviewed during site plan review so staff will ensure that those
standards are met to prevent light trespass and glare on neighboring properties during the site
plan review process.
The sixth criterion that was repealed.
Seventh states that loudspeakers or intercom systems should be located to minimize
disturbances on adjacent uses. Again, there are two kiosks for ordering and they are oriented
north and northeast, which means that they don't face the right-of-way, they face the internal
drive. Additionally, the property is not adjacent to residential uses so staff doesn't believe that
this would be an issue either.
Next Lehmann reviewed the seven criteria that are for all special exceptions. The first is that it
won't be detrimental or endanger public health, safety, comfort or welfare. Again, this replaces
an existing facility, and the proposed establishment is smaller than the previous establishment
so vehicular traffic should be similar and should not substantially exceed previous levels. There
is vehicular circulation and access that's adequate to facilitate the drive-through and to facilitate
pedestrian access. He reiterated there may be some potential conflicts at the exit of the drive-
through but staff does believe that doesn't create any safety issues.
Second is that it won't injure the use or enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. Again, this is in a
commercial area and is complementary with surrounding uses. Screening and street trees will
help mitigate impacts to the pedestrian environment and the neighborhood at large as well.
Third is that it won't affect normal and orderly developments within the district. The surrounding
area is fully developed with commercial uses and staff doesn't believe that future redevelopment
or improvement of surrounding properties would be affected by the proposed drive-through.
Fourth is that there are adequate utilities for the use. Lehmann confirmed there are already
utilities, access roads and facilities established for the area that can meet the site requirements.
The project does expand green space on the site and landscaping so that should reduce
stormwater runoff, which is seen as a net positive.
Fifth is that measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress which minimize traffic
congestion on public streets. Again, there's adequate stacking spaces with this use and also
signage and pavement markings to direct vehicles through this site and other markings to bring
pedestrians through the site so staff doesn't believe that the site plan proposed would negatively
impact ingress or egress on public streets, nor do they think it would substantially affect traffic
congestion with the reduced size of the use.
105
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 15 of 26
Sixth is that all other standards must be met. Again, this is an existing non-conforming
development approved prior to the current zoning code in 2005 but because the non-conforming
use is being removed then all non-conforming development on the site, which would be things
like parking, lighting, and screening, must be brought into compliance with current zoning code
standards. The site plan shows adequate parking and bicycle parking with the minimum
requirements in the code, and it brings several aspects of it into compliance with current
standards like removal of parking spaces on the drive, replacement of the non-conforming drive-
through and the addition of street trees, additional screening, etc. Staff generally reviews all
these things during a site plan review and they also are reviewed at building permit review so
staff will ensure that that the standards are brought into full conformance. For the purpose of
looking at the drive-through, staff believes that it meets those standards.
Finally, seventh is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as
general commercial and the South District Plan also shows this as commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan has provisions to support new business development in existing core or
neighborhood commercial areas so based on that staff does believe that it is consistent.
Lehmann noted staff didn't receive any public comments on this item.
Staff recommends approval of EXC23-0001, to allow an accessory drive-through facility in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone, for the property at 1926 Keokuk Street.
Carlson asked what a bypass lane is. Lehmann explained a bypass lane allows a vehicle that's
in line to leave the line if something happens and they need to get out of the lane. They had
looked at a bypass lane previously, but it wasn’t possible because it was a non-conforming
development, but now with building a new structure they are able to add in a bypass lane.
Thomas Scesniak (Architect for JAM Investments of Iowa City) stated he worked closely with
staff in the redevelopment of this property. As stated this was approved once before but due to
some changes within Popeye's Corporate, the need for the bypass lane was mandated, which
meant they could no longer use the existing building and had to start all over again. They are
now putting in a brand-new building from the ground up, it’ll have all new utilities, all new
everything, including the landscaping, as well as the bypass lane and the double drive-through.
He also noted the actual window for pickup does not face the streets at all so any noise that will
be generated by that or cars sit parking area, will be internal to the existing Pepperwood Plaza.
Upon the Board’s approval and acceptance of this special exception the drawings for all this
work, including the site plans will be resubmitted to the building department. They hope to move
forward with construction this March. They would try to get a demolition permit done very
quickly so they can start tearing down the existing Pizza Hut, which is way too big for what they
wanted as it’s over 3800 square foot. They will start construction once they get the approval
from the building department, financing is in place, the owners JAM Investments owns the
property so they’re ready to go subject to acceptance and approval of the special exception.
Carlson asked about the importance of the bypass lane to the project. Scesniak reiterated it
allows for someone who has an emergency to not get stuck in the drive-through land and can
get out carefully, cautiously, slowly from the line and go on their merry way. Bypass lanes are
an element they try to put into a site plan because it can be frustrating for someone to get stuck
in a drive-through and have an emergency, however they take up so much room on the site and
it's more paving and it's less green space which is something that they much like to incorporate
106
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 16 of 26
into the site, but the bypass lane calms people down.
Carlson closed the public hearing.
Swygard moved approval of EXC23-0001, to allow an accessory drive-through facility in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone, for the property at 1926 Keokuk Street.
Russo seconded the motion.
Swygard stated she is glad to see this site be redeveloped and welcome Popeyes on that side
of town.
Carlson likes the inclusion of the bypass lane and noted when they met with Board last summer,
they seem to represent a company that is interested in their product and their location and
giving a good presentation, but also making it easy for people to access it and use it and it looks
like by tearing this down and rebuilding it they're increasing that even more.
Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC23-0001 he does concur with the findings set forth in
the staff report of meeting date, March 8, 2023 and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he recommends
that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. Swygard
seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Carlson stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to
a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC23-0002:
An application submitted by the Domestic Violence Intervention Program requesting a special
exception to allow a Community Service - Shelter use in an Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) zone
for a new emergency shelter at 612 Olympic Court.
Russo announced he has a conflict and will have to recuse himself from this hearing.
Carlson opened the public hearing.
Lehmann began the staff report showing the site, it is on Olympic Court off Boyrum Street. It’s
west of Keokuk Street and surrounded by primarily commercial uses with an institutional use to
the west, which is the current shelter. All the sites are currently occupied with the parcel to the
northeast being the new Kwik Trip. The existing property is currently just a parking lot and
there's also an existing cell tower. It is zoned Intensive Commercial, as are the properties to the
south and west and Intensive Commercial areas are generally for sale and service functions
and business operations typically characterized by activities or operations that use a larger
amount of land. However, legislatively City Council has agreed that includes shelter uses by
special exception, if it meets approval criteria. With regards to the actual a lot itself, it's a large
lot around 30,000 square feet and vehicular access is provided directly from Boyrum Street.
107
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 17 of 26
Again, the parcel is surrounded by a variety of commercial and institutional uses, but approval
would allow construction of an emergency shelter for up to 70 survivors of domestic violence
who would remain temporarily. The proposed building is on the north side of the site with
parking and access on the south side. There's also parking proposed for the first floor of
building. Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) itself is a nonprofit agency as is
required for a shelter use, which includes transient housing. It is a 501(c)(3) entity. The site will
retain that cell tower that was approved for the site. Lehmann showed the site plan and noted
outdoor areas are fenced, there's some dog areas to the east and southeast and there's an
outdoor area for open space and for playground uses to the northwest. He pointed out the
parking aisle, and the tower in the southeast portion of the site which has fencing around it.
The role of the Board tonight is to approve, approve with conditions or denying the application
based on the facts presented. To approve a special exception the Board must find that all
applicable approval criteria are met including specific standards for the Community Service-
Shelter Use and then also general standards.
With regards to the Community Service-Shelter Use the criteria can be found at 14-4B-4D-5 of
the zoning code and there are three general sets of criteria. First is related to maximum density.
The relevant standard is that in CI-1 zones there is a minimum of 300 square feet of lot area per
permanent resident and 200 square feet of lot area for temporary residence is required. There
are other maximum density requirements in other zones including RM-12 and RM-20 and CO-1
but those don't apply because the property is not in any of those zones. Due to the lot size,
theoretically this subject property could accommodate 101 permanent residents or 152
temporary residents. In this case, the proposed use is for 70 temporary residents so that meets
this standard. Lehmann added in the event that a use that was approved by special exception is
expanded in the future, that requires an additional special exception to approve the use. They
are approving the use for up to 70 residents, and for it to be expanded they would need to come
back for another special exception.
The second standard is related to nuisance issues, and that the special exception won't have a
significant adverse effect on the livability of nearby residential and commercial uses due to
loitering, noise, glare from lights, late night operations, odors, outdoor storage and litter. The
applicant must submit a site plan and Shelter Management Plan that addresses these issues as
well as some specific elements of that plan. Lehmann confirmed a site plan and Shelter
Management Plan were submitted with the special exception and was included in the agenda
packet. With regards to addressing litter and waste removal and maintaining the exterior of the
property, there is a full-time maintenance coordinator on site for the property. As far as loitering,
due to they’re circumstance being victims of domestic violence, shelter residents are expected
to remain on the shelter grounds within the designated fenced outdoor areas. Unwelcome
individuals would be promptly required to leave for the safety of residents and those nearby. In
terms of glare from lights, the exterior lighting is primarily intended to identify unwelcome
individuals and its largely motion activated. Additionally, the exterior lighting needs to meet City
exterior lighting standards for the CI-1 zone. With regards to late night operations, the shelter is
open 24 hours daily, but it has quiet time from 10pm to 7am so that should help with some noise
issues. In addition, the property is in a commercial area, so those noise and light impacts tend
to have less impacts than in residential areas. With regards to odors and litter, there's outside
dumpsters that are screened per City standards and in addition, outdoor storage is not allowed
per their shelter management plan. Staff does recommend as a condition of approval that the
Shelter Management Plan be followed but with the ability of staff to have minor amendments in
108
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 18 of 26
the future, if those are needed. The use will be continually staffed by a certified victim advocate,
trained in CPR first aid, facilities security, response conflict resolution and de-escalation, so a lot
of those things address the issues within the criteria itself. The building includes an alarm
system, secure entries, motion activated lighting and video camera systems for safety of
residents and staff. In the event there's a shelter resident that's not following the rules of living
there, which includes threats or use of violence, they would be required to leave and again staff
is trained to address those issues. Based on those findings, staff believes that this is adequate
to meet the approval criteria with the condition that the Shelter Management Plan be followed.
In terms of site development standards, there are three subsections but only one applies in this
case, that the proposed facility must comply with minimum standards in the Iowa City Housing
Code. The other standards apply in a residential, CB-10 and CB-5 zones which those do not
apply. The Iowa City Housing Code would be reviewed annually by City housing inspectors to
make sure that it meets those standards because a rental permit is required for this use. Upon
reissuance and renewal of the rental permit staff would ensure that those standards are met and
confirmed this criterion is met.
The general standards for all special exception are found at 14-4B-3 and the first is regarding
effects on public health, safety, comfort or welfare. Again, DVIP is a nonprofit and they have
extensive experience providing emergency shelter uses, and their Management Plan helps
minimize impacts on surrounding properties related to loitering, noise, glare, late night
operations, outdoor storage, and litter. Additionally, the facility will employ a full time
maintenance coordinator so this site would be continually staffed to ensure a safe, clean and
orderly environment. In terms of the proposed use, it compliments nearby uses, specifically the
adjacent shelter and provides a necessary service for at-risk residents of the community as well.
The second criterion is that it won't injure the use and enjoyment of property in the immediate
vicinity or substantially impact property values of the adjacent properties. The adjacent property
has contained a shelter use for 30 years, and the other adjacent uses have been occupied over
that time. The proposed use, with regards to the scale of the building, is at a similar scale to
nearby buildings and staff anticipates the Management Plan will help minimize impacts on
surrounding properties so believes this criterion is met.
Three is that it won't impede normal and orderly development of surrounding properties.
Lehmann reiterated the area is fully developed with a mix of commercial and institutional uses,
including an existing shelter for 35 survivors of domestic violence directly to the west and there
are setbacks that are adequate to physically allow surrounding properties to develop. Lehmann
also reiterated it's expected that shelter residents will remain on the shelter grounds due to the
nature of their circumstances and may be active after business hours which should limit impacts
on surrounding properties.
Four is adequate utilities, roads, drainage, etc. are provided. Again this is a developed area
with access to those facilities for the proposed use. There is also transit within 500 feet of the
proposed use and the project reduces pavement on site and restores some open space for
residents which should also assist with stormwater runoff compared to the existing parking lot.
Criterion five addresses ingress and egress with traffic congestion on public streets. Lehmann
explained the proposed use has vehicular and pedestrian access from Olympic Court currently
and it has the capacity to accommodate additional traffic. Again, transit is located nearby which
109
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 19 of 26
should help minimize some vehicular traffic impacts. In addition, there's adequate parking
spaces for the use based on the standards in the underlying zone. There's also some on street
parking on the south side of Olympic Court and the proposed use is not expected to
substantially affect access on the public streets. Staff also doesn't believe it would substantially
affect traffic congestion either given the traffic volumes on that road with it being a cul-de-sac.
Sixth is that all other standards must be met. Again, the site plan shows adequate parking
spaces and bicycle parking spaces to meet the minimum parking standards. It's currently a
parking lot without a primary use so the site plan does bring several aspects of the subject
property into compliance with current zoning standards including things like screening and street
trees. Staff will ensure that the proposed use complies with all applicable standards at the time
of site plan and building permit review.
Finally, it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. Lehmann
stated the Future Land Use map looks at this area as intensive commercial, and the South
District Plan shows it as commercial. However, the Comprehensive Plan vision supports
compatible infill development and the zoning code indicates that this use can be compatible
within a CI-1 zone with approval of a special exception. The South District Plan also specifies
there's 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.
So based on those findings, staff does believe that it's consistent with the City's current Plans.
Lehmann stated staff did receive a piece of late correspondence, so it wasn't in the agenda
packet, but he forwarded it to the Board prior to the meeting. In summary, the correspondence
was from Kim White on behalf of John Barron president of Barren Motor Supply, which is a
neighboring property owner. They have some concerns about the saturation of shelter uses
within this area in addition to crime safety concerns and effects on property values. They
suggested that a commercial use better fits the site but did note that if the project was approved
they'd be interested in fencing along the lot line to make sure that their property is maintained in
a safe manner to address some of their concerns.
Based on these findings. staff recommends approval of EXC23-0002, to allow a Community
Service – Shelter Use for the property at 612 Olympic Court, subject to the following condition:
1. Compliance with the submitted Management Plan dated January 23, 2023. Staff may
approve minor amendments to the plan.
Swygard asked regarding the kennels, are those for use of the victims of domestic violence,
would they be bringing pets with them. Lehmann confirmed that is his understanding, it's not a
commercial kennel which would be a different principle use subject to different standards.
Swygard asked if they will submit any site development plan for these kennels to show they are
weatherproof or are they just fenced areas, do they have a pet management plan describing
how pets will be handled. Lehmann replied they didn’t include a pet management plan in their
Shelter Management Plan. He noted they probably have individual policies but it's not part of
the application before the Board today and they don't have detailed building drawings at this
time. Swygard asked if the shelter to the west has existing kennels. Lehmann deferred to the
applicant to answer those sorts of questions.
Carlson noted this construction would only be able to shelter 70 people and if they were going to
increase that number that it would have to go through another special exception. Lehmann
110
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 20 of 26
confirmed that the expansion of a use approved by special exception would require an
additional special exception. Expansions are defined within the code as increasing the number
of bedrooms, increasing floor area, etc. What the Board approves today is what will be allowed,
he acknowledged there is a chance that the building permit could have some additional units
than what is before them today and if that is a concern, they could approve the shelter use with
70 beds to make sure that the limit. Then if they came back at some point in the future and
wanted to expand, such as add an extra story, that would require another special exception.
Carlson noted transit access is available less than 500 feet from the proposed use, but where
exactly is it. Lehmann pointed out it is on Boyrum Street at the end of Olympic Court.
Carlson asked if the 15 parking spaces and four bicycle parking spaces are just for the residents
or will there be people working there included in those 15 spaces, where do the people that
work there park. Lehmann confirmed parking spaces for a shelter use are based on both staff
and residents and the requirement is one spot per 10 residents and one spot per on-site staff.
The standard bicycle parking is 25% of vehicular spaces.
Baker asked if any other sites were searched for or considered before this one was arrived at.
Lehmann is unsure.
Baker stated the language regarding the use is confusing to him, the South District Plan
specifies that 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” and he doesn’t understand how this project or any other project contributes to
the overall health of the surrounding neighborhood, especially when there is disagreement
about the actual location of the facility in the neighborhood. Lehmann explained the criterion is
that the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The
South District Plan contemplates within commercial areas that there can be uses other than
commercial ones. He believes in the creation of the South District Plan there were some
concerns regarding concentrations of institutional uses, which can affect the overall health of a
commercial area. So the idea is to make sure that as these uses are approved within this area
as something that provides a positive contribution to the area.
Kristie Fortmann-Doser (Executive Director, Domestic Violence Intervention Program) stated
they are excited to share their plans for the future. Domestic Violence Intervention Program is a
nonprofit crisis intervention service that provides a range of services and support for victims of
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and human trafficking. Over the course of the years,
they've had a domestic violence shelter, and they've been in the adjacent property for more than
30 years, they have housed approximately 300 to 350 women, children and men a year with
over 35 a night, they are full every day. Additionally, about 10 years ago the State of Iowa
restructured how it funds domestic violence programs and sexual assault programs and as a
result half of the programs in the State closed and they lost almost two thirds of the shelter beds
in the State of Iowa. They went from 28 shelters to eight. Fortmann-Doser stated they have
known for some time that they were not meeting the need, they have requests of about 450
individuals, women, children and men every year that they can't meet. What they do is that
when individuals are in immediate danger and the shelters are full, they will put individuals in
hotels which is an expense that is prohibitive and difficult or they'll try to find another safe place
for them to get be temporarily until they can come into shelter. Again, right now they're serving
about 350 individuals a year and with this expansion they will be able to support about 700
111
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 21 of 26
individuals a year which will be significant in meeting the need that currently exists. Their current
location is literally adjacent to this subject property, and they have had their shelter there for
more than 30 years. It is their intention and goal to use those two buildings collaboratively, but
only one of them will be a shelter and that would be the new building. The collaborative use of
the building they are currently in would be for storage, for some services, and with a goal of
some potential low-income housing for transitional and permanent purposes for former victims.
Rob Decker (Axiom Consultants) stated Axiom applied for the project and is also the engineer
and the owner's representative. He is the project manager and can answer any questions.
Swygard had questions regarding the design of these kennels. Decker first stated he wouldn't
call them kennels, they're temporary spaces, much like the shelter, and the intent is victims not
wanting to leave their pets behind and this shelter is the only one in the State that has these
facilities and they're currently overwhelmed much like the shelter is. There are currently two
spaces for dogs and cats and this would effectively double those, but they're temporary spaces.
The victims are usually in the common spaces or in their rooms and they can go to these
spaces to essentially hang out with their pets by themselves so they're almost like little therapy
rooms with an outdoor space that a pet obviously needs. The intent is the dogs do not get
kenneled outside and are outside for a brief period. In terms of how they would be designed
there's a national organization called Red Rover that does a lot of this in partnership with
shelters, and they would help with the design of this.
Fortmann-Doser stated she is excited to share information about the program, it’s called
Cooper's house and DVIP was one of the first programs to have a pet program in Iowa. They’ve
been doing this for about 20 years but in 2015 Red Rover, which is a national organization,
approached DVIP to help them build kennel shelters at the current shelter location. It is
designed to be a space where victims can bring their pets along with them. She stated they
know from data that about domestic violence and victimization that 75% of the families that they
work with have pets, and of that group more than half won't leave the situation without the pets
because they know those pets will be injured or killed. Their pet program over the last 20 years
has been responding to that exact issue, they’ve provided funds for medical care, they provide
funds for food supplies, and they’ve done fostering of pets. But again, in 2015 this national
organization approached them about setting up the kennels and have been their partners
throughout. They funded a couple of renovations at the shelter to provide the services and are
completely invested in building these spaces at this new shelter. Fortmann-Doser added Red
Rover actually uses their policy book and their training model nationally and they routinely get
calls from shelters across the country to talk about Cooper's house. Fortmann-Doser stated
they’ve been lucky to have such tremendous support and she can't say enough about Johnson
County as a community being supportive. She noted leaving without a pet is incredibly difficult
and they have served all four legged, finned, feathered and even agricultural animals. Many
times they've had to rehome or foster cattle and horses and cows and pigs. She explained the
premise behind this is that all of the care is given by the owner of the pet, the family that is
staying in shelter, they're responsible for all the care, and the design of the rooms is so that they
have a space where they can privately be with that pet for whatever time period they want and
that other shelter residents don't interact with the pets in any way, shape or form. The design
includes a pass-through door that goes to an outside kennel space that is completely enclosed
so pets, whether they're cats or dogs, or whatever, would have indoor/outdoor access and then
they also have a walking play area where families can take their pets that's on the opposite
corner of the proposed building from the youth outdoor play area.
112
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 22 of 26
Swygard asked if they partner with any local services in case a pet comes in and then gets ill,
do they partner with Iowa City Animal Control or local vets. Fortmann-Doser stated their staff
are trained by Iowa City Animal Control and work closely with the Iowa City Animal Shelter.
They provide resources and medication and a whole myriad of what is needed, but the training
is probably the most critical thing they provide to shelter staff regarding the appropriate handling
and care of animals if something were to happen, and therefore shelter staff are well prepared
and able to respond to an emergency situation. In addition, the shelter has relationships with all
the animal rescue programs in the eight-county service area which include Johnson, Iowa,
Cedar, Washington, Lee, Van Buren, Henry, and Des Moines counties. They have animal
rescue programs that they work with for fostering and assistance with the volunteer program
and then they also work with veterinarians who give services at their cost or donated.
Carlson noted they want to serve 700 individuals and wondered at what time of day do most of
their clients come, noting she understands they need to be careful about the activities to protect
their clients as much as possible, but she would like to get an idea of the comings and goings at
the facility in relation to the other neighbors. Fortmann-Doser replied again they’ve been there
for 30 years and have good relationships with their neighbors, including Barrons, their staff are
amazing and have done volunteer work and donations of support around auto parts and things
like that for shelter clients. They have great supportive neighbors. In terms of how somebody
has contact with the shelter, people will contact the shelter through the 24-hour crisis line and
that's where they do the initial assessment and lethality assessment, meaning trying to find out
how serious their situation is because the shelter is full 100% of the time, and the higher lethality
cases are going to come into the shelter. Generally those happen mostly nine to five because
when they're having contact in the overnight hours with anybody it's typically through law
enforcement and it's a situation where somebody has been arrested and that person is still in
their home but it's not going to be safe for them to stay. For someone that does contact them in
the overnight they'll have conversations with them and make arrangements with them during the
day to come in. She stated maybe about 10% or 15% of their cases of bringing somebody into
shelter happens in overnight hours, but it's usually a very quiet time for them.
Carlson asked about cars and the parking and there's only parking on one side of Olympic
Court and with all the other commercial entities there, would there be an impact on their parking.
Fortmann-Doser stated because they intend to keep both properties, they will have enough
space. Right now their staff parks in the open parking lot they intend to build on and the clients
park in the shelter parking lot. The reverse will happen when they build the new building,
because they intend to keep that second property and will continue to use that. The parking on
the proposed lot and also on the main floor underneath the building is designed primarily for
victims. A staff person can use it if absolutely needed but that's not the way that they currently
practice and don't intend to. Carlson asked if they prefer to have residents park in the buildings.
Fortmann-Doser confirmed they do and one of the key issues when they were putting this
design together was having underground parking with garage doors for security and for
anonymity for the individuals that they're serving. They don't have any garage space at the
current building and if a batterer can figure out where they're at, they can find out if their
partners are there by seeing their car. Decker added there are four spots out front and eleven
stalls inside the garage through a secure door that has a card access.
Swygard had a question about the fencing since that seems to be an issue of what type of fence
will be used, will it be opaque fencing. Fortmann-Doser replied, as is true with their current
building where they do have fencing, one cannot see through it. It's six feet high and is a
113
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 23 of 26
molded plastic. The fencing they intend to do in the location will be wood fencing, but they will
have another security fencing for this location as well, that's something they will maintain and
continue. They need fencing for security reasons and it'll be within the constraints of what's
allowed by code which is maybe within two feet of the lot line.
Baker had a question about staffing noting they will have a full-time maintenance person, is that
24/7 on-site or just full-time employment and how many people are on-site 24 hours. Fortmann-
Doser explained in their current building with 35 people a night they have one full time
maintenance and staff person, and they're not there 24 hours, but all of the staff, on some level,
have training around basic maintenance and maintaining the property in terms of where trash
goes, supplies go, where resources are maintained, maintaining the exterior, etc., but that
maintenance person is responsible for the day to day upkeep of the property. At the shelter
they have one staff person per shift, that is the main line shift person and then they always have
a backup person as well on call that is available as needed. On the new premises, with the 70
per night capacity, their goal is to increase that to two full time maintenance people but the first
priority will be increasing the direct service staff to full time, per shift, and additional support
beyond that. They have about 35 staff, and those staff are available and use the shelter space
because they're providing services to the individuals who are staying there so there's always
anywhere from six to eight people at the building from 7am to 9pm or 10pm. At night, the lowest
census of staff support is from about 10pm until about 7am.
Baker asked if the video security cameras are both internal and external and do the external
cameras also have some line of visibility to the surrounding properties. Fortmann-Doser
confirmed they are both internal and external, and yes they try to keep the visibility to be able to
see where motion would be around the block to see if someone was trying to hide themselves.
The security system was designed specifically for the property and a same process will happen
with this new building, they will have security professionals who will review and determine where
they need to have those cameras. Baker is wondering if these sorts of video cameras are
actually a positive asset for the neighbors as well as for the shelter itself. Fortmann-Doser
stated with the proximity of where this building site is, she believes that is the case. She also
explained that batterers don't want to get caught but they may want their partner to believe they
know where it's at. Baker asked how long they store the tapes. Fortmann-Doser replied right
now they do two weeks and that's based on the system that they have and they intend to
upgrade that and are expecting that they will probably have capacity for longer storage. They
are also looking at updating their phone system and going to a VoIP system and are looking at
what capacity they are going to need for data storage with the new building.
Baker asked about their experience with the neighbors, what have their concerns been that they
expressed over time about the current operation. Fortmann-Doser replied honestly, they
haven't had complaints, they have tremendous neighbors that look out for them. They get calls
from neighbors letting them know there's a guy in the parking lot or there's a guy sitting on the
street in his car, because they are concerned and support the victim survivors. She
acknowledged people's fears and concerns, but their relationships have been strong and many
neighbors are donors to their program. Baker asked if they have ever had any concerns
expressed that made them change some policy or action. Fortmann-Doser cannot recall any.
Carlson closed the public hearing.
Swygard moved approval of EXC23-0002, to allow a Community Service – Shelter Use for
114
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 24 of 26
the property located at 612 Olympic Court, subject to the following condition:
1. Compliance with the submitted Management Plan dated January 23, 2023. Staff may
approve minor amendments to the plan.
Baker seconded the motion.
Carlson noted although it was said that if they wanted to make this larger, they would have to go
through a special exception again but she would like it included in this that the emergency
shelter would be up to approximately 70 survivors. She wants to make sure the plans people
are seeing right now is what they're going to get.
Baker said he doesn’t have strong feelings about that particular issue but would support it if
Swygard wanted to change the motion.
Lehmann noted if they do change the motion, he suggested they don't use the word
approximately, either use 70 or go a little above and base it on a number of beds.
Swygard stated she doesn’t feel particularly strongly about that because the fundamental law or
ruling is in place that would it have to go through the process again.
Carlson stated her major concern is that neighbors know that this is the size it will continue to
be.
Swygard appreciates that but thinks the neighbors, if they have concerns about that, could
follow up with City staff about that particular issue.
Swygard stated regarding agenda item EXC23-0002 she concurs with the findings in the staff
report of March 8, 2023 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so
unless amended or opposed by another board member she recommends that the Board adopt
the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 (Russo recused).
Carlson stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to
a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office
CONSIDER THE DECEMBER 14, 2022 MINUTES:
Swygard moved to approve the minutes of December 14, 2022, Baker seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion carried 4-0.
BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Carlson stated next month's meeting will be April 12 and Lehmann sent out a message so if
anybody has a conflict of interest with the appeal application on Van Buren Street they need to
recuse themselves so please let Lehmann know so he can find someone else.
Lehmann noted Baker already told him that he's had previous conversations so he feels more
115
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 25 of 26
comfortable recusing himself, and Lehmann has found an alternate for him already. The Board
also does have a second alternate so if there is something that comes up they are ready to go.
Lehmann stated the Community Police Review Board forum is on April 28 at 5:30pm at the Iowa
City Public Library.
ADJOURNMENT:
Carlson moved to adjourn this meeting, Parker seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
116
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 2023
Page 26 of 26
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023
NAME
TERM
EXP.
3/8
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2023 X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member
117