Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.09.2025 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, July 9, 2025 – 5:15 PM City Hall, 410 East Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall Agenda: 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Special Exception Item a.EXC25-0003: An application submitted by Jeff Clark requesting two special exceptions to allow ground floor residential in a commercial zone and a parking reduction in a Central Business Zone (CB-10) for the property located at 17 and 23 S Gilbert Street. (EXC25-0003) b.EXC25-0004: An application submitted by Mike Vandermeir of Evans Scholar Foundation requesting a special exception to allow a parking reduction in a High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (RM-44) for the property located at 729 N Dubuque Street. (EXC25-0004) 4.Discussion on City Land Development Fees 5.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 12, 2025 6.Adjournment If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning at 319-356-5251 or at arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings Formal: August 13 / September 10 / October 8 Informal: Scheduled as needed. July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0003 ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA Staff Materials 1 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC25-0003 July 9, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: in a commercial zone and a 100% 2 File Date: June 6, 2025 BACKGROUND: The owner, DAV-1, LLC is requesting two special exceptions for the property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of E. Washington St. and S. Gilbert St: 1. To allow two ground floor residential units along the S. Gilbert St frontage in the Central Business (CB-10) zone, which allows ground floor residential through a special exception; and 2. A reduction in the required parking to zero (100% parking reduction) to protect the building’s historic character. For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008, parking is required for residential uses after the first 10 bedrooms and 0.5 parking spaces are required for each additional bedroom beyond 10. If built today, the building currently has 12 bedrooms and would require 2 parking spaces for the addition of four bedrooms. Commercial uses do not require parking, and the Central Business zones strictly regulate parking. The CB-10 zone does not allow surface parking and the building would need to be structurally altered to accommodate parking. If the first special exception is granted, the applicant requests a second special exception to reduce the parking requirement to zero (100%) due to its historic significance. The subject property was constructed prior to its current zoning designation. The existing structure at 17 and 23 S Gilbert, parcel 1010436005, was built c. 1899 as a factory by Emil Louis Boerner, the first dean of the University of Iowa Department of Pharmacy. In 1922 the building was converted to a hotel and later managed by George W. Davis, who renamed it the Davis Hotel. The property is significant for its role in the history of Iowa City education, industry and pharmacy studies, and for its association with the life and career of Emil Louis Boerner. It is also a contributing structure in the Iowa City Downtown Historic District which was listed in the National Register in June 2021. The property is also eligible to be designated a local historic landmark. 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 action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included in Section 14-4B-4A-7e, pertaining to ground floor residential uses in commercial zones, and in Section 14-5A-4F-7, pertaining to parking reductions for historic properties, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A. For the Board of Adjustment to grant these special exception requests, each of the following criterion below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below. 3 First Special Exception. Specific Standards: 14-4B-4A-7e Exception for Residential Use on the Ground Floor in Commercial Zone (1) Where the proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone a rehabilitation plan for the property must be reviewed and approved by the Iowa City historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted. FINDINGS: • The property is not located within a Historic District Overlay (OHD), and therefore, this criterion is not applicable. (2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. FINDINGS: • The subject property is zoned Central Business Zone (CB-10), which is intended to be a high density, compact, pedestrian oriented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City. This zone is intended to accommodate a wide range of retail, service, office and residential uses. • Private, off street parking is strictly regulated in order to preserve valuable land for active building uses and to maintain a pedestrian oriented streetscape. • The ground floor residential units will fill the commercial spaces located on Gilbert Street. These existing commercial spaces have remained largely vacant over the last 10 years. • The commercial use and store front at the corner of Washington and Gilbert Street will remain unaltered, maintaining the active commercial use and pedestrian oriented streetscape. • The conversion to residential requires the addition of only two parking spaces. (3) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building: (A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade; (B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property line; (C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display windows; and FINDINGS: • The property is not located within a Historic District Overlay (OHD) and this criterion is not applicable. 4 Second Special Exception. Alternative to Minimum Parking Requirements 14-5A-4F-7: Parking Reduction For Other Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone). FINDINGS: • The property is listed as a contributing structure in the Iowa City Downtown Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The property is also listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places. The building is eligible to be designated a local historic landmark. • The building was constructed in 1899 to fit the lot in its entirety. • No parking is provided on the property, and although the property currently has 12 bedrooms, which would require 1 parking space today, the parking is a legal non- conformity. Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non- conformities because a change of use is allowed by 14-4E ‘Nonconforming Situations’ of the City Code where no structural alterations are being proposed, and no structural alterations are proposed. • Four new bedrooms are proposed on the ground floor, which require two parking spaces. • Surface parking is not permitted in the CB-10 zone and accommodating parking would require significant alterations to a historically significant structure, which would diminish or remove all historic integrity. • A 100% parking reduction will help preserve and protect the property’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural attributes because providing parking will require significant alternations to the structure. • Additionally, the parking reduction will allow the current vacant space to be utilized. The commercial space has been vacant for around 10 years. General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDINGS: • The existing development will not be altered as all work will be interior renovations. • Without a parking reduction, redevelopment of the vacant commercial space to residential will require the property to accommodate parking, which would not be possible on site or along the street in this area. • The addition of residential units will further the intent of the CB-10 zone by converting currently unused commercial spaces into residential units, increasing density and encouraging pedestrian interaction with the vibrant commercial core. 5 • Without a parking reduction, providing parking for the residential uses would require structural alterations, which may be detrimental to the historic integrity of the property. • Access to surrounding properties will not be affected. 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 proposed renovations and parking reduction will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy their properties, nor will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. • Additional traffic is not likely to be generated by the proposed conversion to residential as they will utilize vacant commercial spaces, which do not require parking, and are proposing to reduce the parking requirement from 2 to 0, aligning with existing conditions. • The proposed renovations would reinvest in underutilized and vacant commercial spaces to provide housing and serve the community. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. FINDINGS: • The surrounding area is fully developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. • The residential units will occupy an existing structure that has been in the neighborhood since 1899 and will provide beneficial services that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding property. • The site currently does not have parking so the existing conditions will not change. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood. • Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalk along E Washington Street and S Gilbert Street. • The site is also within walking distance of Iowa City Transit stops. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS: • The existing development has been in place since 1899 and takes up the entirety of the lot. The property does not have vehicular ingress or egress, nor is one being proposed. No impacts to vehicular traffic congestion are proposed as part of this exception. • No changes are being proposed to the existing sidewalk or street. 6 • Additional parking would impact traffic flow for surrounding developments at a busy intersection. A parking reduction from two to zero would ensure existing conditions are met and limit potential traffic impacts. 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 subject property meets the requirements of the base zone with the exception of required open space for residential uses. • Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non-conformities because a change of use is allowed by 14-4E ‘Nonconforming Situations’ of the City Code where no structural alterations are being proposed. • The addition of residential units would not extend the existing nonconforming development as no open space has ever been provided, nor could it due to the building being constructed in 1899 to fill the entirety of the lot. 7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. FINDINGS: • The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as General Commercial. The property is also located in the Downtown District, which has master plan objectives to protect historic character and key historic buildings, maintain a balance of uses, and provide residential options. • The Comprehensive Plan supports investing in historic and established neighborhoods to help preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. The Plan further states “Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school, shopping; promotes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled” (pg. 21). • The proposed exception would provide downtown housing and provide opportunities for people to live close to work, school, shopping, while also being within a pedestrian friendly environment. • A parking reduction would align with the Plan’s vision for maintaining historic resources and promote walking, biking, and the use of available transit services within the downtown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0003 to: 1. Allow ground floor residential along S. Gilbert Street in a commercial zone while maintaining the commercial space along E. Washington Street, and 2. Allow a 100% parking reduction in a Central Business (CB-10) zone for the property located at 17 and 23 S. Gilbert Street in order to accommodate two additional residential units. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map & Zoning Map 7 2. Application Materials Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0003 ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0003 ATTACHMENT 2 Application Materials Specific Approval Criteria: Ground Floor Residential Exception: The board of adjustment may grant a special exception for multi-family dwellings to be located on or below the ground level floor of a building, provided that the following criteria are met: (1) Where the proposed dwelling will be located in an existing building in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone a rehabilitation plan for the property must be reviewed and approved by the Iowa City historic preservation commission. The rehabilitation of the property must be completed according to this plan before an occupancy permit is granted. (2) The proposed dwellings will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. (3) If an existing building located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone includes three (3) or more of the following commercial storefront characteristics, dwellings are prohibited on or below the street level floor of that building: (A) The main entrance to the building is at or near grade; (B) The front facade of the building is located within ten feet (10') of the front property line; (C) The front facade of the building contains ground floor storefront or display windows; and The following general criteria will also need to be met: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 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. 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. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. 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. 7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. 17 and 23 S. Gilbert St. Special Exception Responses Response to Specific Approval Criteria: #2. The proposed changes will not significantly alter the overall commercial character of the subject zone. The buildings use is predominantly residential and is looked at as a mixed use building. It will still maintain a commercial space on the corner and will remain a mixed use building. Response to General Approval Criteria: #1. Our answer is no. #2. Our answer is no. #3. Our answer is no. #4. Our answer is yes #5. Our answer is no, there is not parking on site and no more parking can be added. #6. Our answer is yes #7. Our answer is yes Request For 100% Parking Reduction This historic building is unique due to how small the lot is and there has not been parking on the property since constructed in the early 1900’s. Many smaller properties in the downtown area do not have parking provided on site because it is not possible. We are asking for a reduction of 2 spaces to accomplish the planned interior conversion. July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0004 ITEM 3B ON THE AGENDA Staff Materials 1 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC25-0004 July 9, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: 2 South: Residential; High Density Multi Family Residential (RM-44); Planned Development -5A-4F-7: Parking Reduction For Other Unique BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mike Vandermeir from Evans Scholar Foundation, has requested a special exception to reduce the onsite parking requirement by up to 50% for a Fraternal Group Living use at 729 N Dubuque Street. The subject property is zoned High Density Multi-Family Residential, which allows Fraternal Group Living uses and has been the primary use of the site since the property was constructed in 1923. Evans Scholar House intends to purchase the property and renovate the space from 19 rooming units to 46 rooming units. Without a parking reduction the property must accommodate a minimum of 34 parking spaces for the proposed 46 rooming units. The applicant requests a special exception for a 50% parking reduction in order to provide 17 parking spaces on site and preserve the unique historic character of the site. There are currently 17 parking spaces on the site. The subject property was constructed prior to its current zoning designation. The existing structure at 729 N Dubuque Street was built in 1923 and known as the Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. According to the State Historical Society of Iowa, the property is eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places for both its architectural and historical significance. Although one has not been formally created, there are nine fraternity houses within the 700 and 800 blocks of N Dubuque Street that constitute a potential historic district. The loss of several historically significant fraternity houses over the years increases the importance of those that remain. A parking reduction would reduce the impact to the historic property and maintain its importance location along the east bank of the Iowa River. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare; to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included in Section 14-5A-4F-7 pertaining to parking reductions for unique circumstances, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A. For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below. Alternative to Minimum Parking Requirements 14-5A-4F-7: Parking Reduction For Other Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking 3 spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay Zone). FINDINGS: •The property is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or within an established Local Conservation or Historic District. However, according to the State Historical Society of Iowa, the property maintains architectural and historical significance and is eligible for National Register listing. •A 2012 Iowa City Gateway study done on behalf of the City noted the potential for the 9 remaining fraternity houses within the 700 and 800 N Dubuque Street block to be placed within a Local Conservation District in order to preserve the historic properties. No historic district has been established to protect the historically significant sites. •The property is currently vacant. Based on City rental inspection records the building has not been occupied since at least March 2022. It previously housed 19 roomers and provided 17 parking spaces. •In order to accommodate 46 roomers, as proposed by the Evans Scholar Foundation, the property would require 34 parking spaces. •The site is significantly sloped. The eastern portion of the site is at an elevation of 672’ while the western portion along the Iowa River is at 644’. The change in grade makes adding parking a challenge. •Additional parking would be required to be located behind the building, along the riverbank, which would not only diminish the historical riverfront character, but also impact the stream corridor and the protected sensitive feature. •Altering the structure to accommodate additional parking would diminish the historically significant architectural character, as well as the historic riverfront integrity that has remained largely unchanged since the fraternity was constructed in 1923. •Over the years several of the existing fraternity and sorority houses in this area have been demolished or negatively impacted. A parking reduction would preserve the site for one of the few remaining historically significant fraternity houses in the City, provide the opportunity for more housing in the community, and allow a building that has been vacant for several years to be reused. General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements: 1.The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDINGS: •The existing development will not be altered if granted the special exception as all work will be interior renovations and the existing parking area would be used to accommodate parking. •Without a parking reduction the property would need to either enlarge the parking area to accommodate 34 spaces, which would alter the riverfront view and open space that is important to the historic character of the site or remain capped at the existing 19 roomers. 4 •Access to surrounding properties will not be affected. •A parking reduction would use and maintain the existing 17 spaces, which would generally maintain the existing conditions for ingress and egress. The additional 17 parking space requirement would increase the vehicles required to use the access along N Dubuque for ingress and egress, which is a major arterial street. •There is no on street parking along N Dubuque Street and the added roomers would not lead to further street congestion. 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 proposed renovations and parking reduction will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy their properties, nor will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. •Additional traffic generated may be minor due to the proposed renovation from 19 roomers to 46. However, if a 50% parking reduction is approved, the existing parking lot and 17 parking spaces will remain in use, aligning with existing conditions. •There is no on street parking along N Dubuque Street. The additional roomers would not lead to further street congestion due to off street parking. •The renovations would provide additional student housing and provide the Evans Scholar Foundation with space to further serve the University. •The property does not have neighbors to the north and abuts the Iowa River to the west. Multifamily residential is located to the south and to the east. The uses in the immediate vicinity are similar in intensity. 3.Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. FINDINGS: •The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of residential and institutional uses. •The additional roomers will occupy an existing structure that has been in the neighborhood since 1923 and been vacant for several years. The project will provide needed housing that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding property •If a parking reduction were granted, the existing parking area would remain in use and existing conditions would not change. 4.Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: •The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood. •Pedestrian access is provided by a sidewalk on the west side of N Dubuque Street. •Iowa City Transit is also accessible from the subject property. 5 •Access to the City’s bicycle infrastructure, including the Iowa River Trail, is available from the subject property. 5.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS: •No changes are being proposed to the existing driveway, sidewalk or street. •Traffic is mostly limited to residents. A minor increase in traffic may be generated to accommodate 46 roomers. However, if a parking reduction is granted the existing parking area and 17 parking spaces would not be increased. •The subject property is also accessible to Iowa City Transit and the City’s bicycle infrastructure. •Additional parking would impact traffic flow for surrounding development along a major arterial street. A parking reduction from 34 spaces to 17 spaces would ensure existing conditions are maintained and limit potential traffic impacts. 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 subject property meets the requirements of the base zone, with the exception of parking for multi-family being located between the street and the building. •Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non-conformities because a change of use is allowed by Section14-4E ‘Nonconforming Situations’ of the City Code where no structural alterations are being proposed. •If a parking reduction were not granted, future parking stalls would need to be located behind the building and along the Iowa River, which would diminish the historical significance of the property’s placement along the riverbank. 7.The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. FINDINGS: •The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as 25+ Dwelling units an acre. The property is also located in the Central District Plan, which designates the property as Fraternity/Sorority housing. •The Comprehensive Plan supports investing in historic and established neighborhoods to help preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City. The Plan further states “Investing in the neighborhoods that are closest to major employers in the city preserves opportunities for people to live close to work, school, shopping; promotes walking and bicycling; and reduces vehicle miles traveled” (pg. 21). •The proposed exception would grant the ability to provide additional student housing and provide opportunities for people to live close to work, school, and shopping. •A parking reduction would align with the Plan’s vision for maintaining historic resources and promote walking, biking, and the use of available transit services within the area. 6 CORRESPONDENCE Staff received one piece of correspondence in support of the parking reduction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0004, to reduce the onsite parking requirement by 50% (from 34 to 17 parking spaces) for a Fraternal Group Living use at 729 N Dubuque Street. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location and Zoning Map 2.Correspondence 3.Application Materials Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0004 ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps P2 a special exception to allow quired parking in a High Dens· 1 Zone (RM-44). 1!2 July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0004 ATTACHMENT 2 Correspondence From:Greg Mittelman To:Parker Walsh Subject:729 N Dubuque special exemption Date:Saturday, June 28, 2025 5:09:01 PM ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Hi Parker, I’m Greg, apart of the ownership group at 630 N. Dubuque and represent all 35 of our residents. We are strongly in favor of the parking reduction and would push for a 100% reduction. While we won’t be at the meeting, please take into consideration the size of our voting bloc vs the few loud neighbors who have time to show up and complain. I’m confident we out number them in our house alone. Thanks! Greg Mittelman Beta Mu Building Company CO P Y R I G H T P R O T E C T I O N U N D E R F E D E R A L L A W ( T I T L E 1 7 , U . S . C O D E ) Ab o v e l a w l i m i t s t h e u s e o f t h i s d o c u m e n t ( d r a w i n g / d a t a ) t o t h i s s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t o n l y , a n d d u p l i c a t i o n w h o l e o r i n p a r t f o r u s e o n o t h e r t h a n t h i s p r o j e c t i s p r o h i b i t e d . Z: \ 2 0 2 5 \ 2 5 1 1 0 \ D R A W I N G S \ B A S E \ 2 5 1 1 0 S I T E L A Y O U T . D W G , EX - 1 , 6/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 5 8 : 3 3 : 4 4 A M ISSUED DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECK BY: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER REV SHEET TITLEPROJECTOWNER NO.REVISION DATE Shoemaker Haaland 25110 IOWA CITY, IA 729 N DUBUQUE STEVANS SCHOLARS 06/09/25 MJW KJB MJW AASPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION 06/09/25 EX-1SITE LAYOUT PLAN BROWN ST N D U B U Q U E S T IO W A R I V E R 729 N DUBUQUE ST PARCEL NO. 1010203005 PHI DELTA THETA HOUSE ASSOC OF IOWA CITY 707 N DUBUQUE ST PARCEL NO. 1010213008 CLINTON STREET LLC PARCEL NO. 1010215001 CITY OF IOWA CITY 804 N DUBUQUE ST PARCEL NO. 1010202012 TERRACE ARMS, LLC PARCEL NO. 1010202008 TERRACE ARMS, LLC 750 N DUBUQUE ST PARCEL NO. 1010214003 EDWARD W SCHICK REVOCABLE TRUST 720 N DUBUQUE ST PARCEL NO. 1010204006 STELTER ENTERPRISES, LLC 215 BROWN ST PARCEL NO. 1010204004 FPH HOLDING, LLC HEUSINKVELD, FORREST FEET 0 10 20 4030 6 4 4 3 SITE PLAN NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OUTLOT 33 IN IOWA CITY WHICH LIES ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID DUBUQUE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID DUBUQUE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 85 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT 33 OF IOWA CITY TO THE EAST LINE OF THE IOWA RIVER; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE IOWA RIVER TO A POINT; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT 33 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PLATTED AREA 46,348 SF 1.06 ACRES ZONING RM44 SETBACKS - BUILDING FRONT 20 FEET SIDE 10 FEET REAR 20 FEET BUILDING INFORMATION FLOOR AREA 16,454 GSF USE: FRATERNAL LIVING ALLOWABLE OCCUPANCY DENSITY 1 ROOMER PER 300 SF OF LOT AREA 46,348 SF / 300 SF PER ROOMER = 154 ROOMERS OCCUPANCY 1 ROOMER PER 300 SF OF BUILDING AREA 16,454 SF / 300 SF PER ROOMER = 55 ROOMERS PARKING 1 STALL PER 300 SF FLOOR AREA - OR - 0.75 STALLS PER ROOMER THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF STALLS BY 50% THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THEREFORE, THE PARKING CALCULATION FOR THE CURRENT PARKING CONFIGURATION IS: 17 PARKING STALLS / 0.75 PER ROOMER = 23 ROOMERS 23 ROOMER / 0.50 SPECIAL EXCEPTION = 46 ROOMERS 8'8'8'8'8'8' 9'9'9' 9' 18' 8'8'9'9' 15 ' 22 ' 15 ' 21'± 17 ' 18 ' 17'± 19'± July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC25-0004 ATTACHMENT 3 Application Materials 3080 SF GROSS AREA 3501 SF GROSS AREA 2976 SF GROSS AREA 3420 SF GROSS AREA 3427 SF GROSS AREA www.streamlinearchitects.com Project number Date Drawn by Checked by STREAMLINE ARCHITECTS, P.L.C. ANDREW DASSO, AIA 575 12TH AVENUE EAST MOLINE, IL 61244 (563) 345-2724 NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SALONI PATEL, AIA (309) 922-1295 saloni@streamlinearchitects.com CO P Y R I G H T © 2 0 2 2 NOAH STRAUSSER (563) 219-0568 noah@streamlinearchitects.com 4/ 2 8 / 2 0 2 5 3 : 3 6 : 1 1 P M A100 AREA PLANS 24-080 04/28/25 Author Checker EV A N S S C H O L A R 72 9 N D U B U Q U E S T . IO W A C I T Y NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 01/8" = 1'-0"1 01-First Floor 01/8" = 1'-0"2 02-Second Floor 01/8" = 1'-0"3 03-Third Floor 01/8" = 1'-0"B1 B1-Basement 01/8" = 1'-0"B2 B2-Basement General Approval Criteria 14-4B-3A: 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Evans Scholars Foundation (“Evans”) has a Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) to purchase from Phi Delta Theta House Association of Iowa City (‘Phi Delta”) real estate located at 729 N. Dubuque St., Iowa City, Iowa. The real estate located at 729 N. Dubuque Street, Iowa City, Iowa, shall be referred to herein as “Real Estate”. Evans’ obligation to purchase the Real Estate under the Agreement is subject to several contingencies including Evans’ determination that the Real Estate is suitable and feasible for Evans’ intended use and occupancy. Evans would like to own the Real Estate and use it to provide housing to 45-55 individuals who receive an Evans’ college scholarship to attend the University of Iowa. It is Evans’ understanding that the Real Estate had for many years been used as fraternity; possibly since the 1920s. Furthermore, from 1960 until 2020, and maybe before, the Real Estate has housed more than 40 individuals. The Real Estate has been vacant since approximately 2020. Evans would like to use the Real Estate consistent with the Real Estate’s use, occupancy and on-site parking from between 1960-2020. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Evans’ intended use, occupancy and on-site parking is consistent with the use of other real estate in the vicinity and neighborhood and would be consistent with how the Real Estate was used for sixty (60) years are more. 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 Real Estate is located in an area that has been fully developed for many decades. Evans intended use, occupancy and on-site parking is consistent with other real estate in the immediate vicinity and neighborhood as there are several fraternities, sororities and multifamily properties in the immediate vicinity of the Real Estate. Use the Real Estate consistent with at least sixty (60) years of its history 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. In fact, Evans submits that Evans’ occupancy and maintenance of the Real Estate which has been vacant for approximately five (5) years will enhance the neighborhood and property values of other properties in vicinity. 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 Real Estate is located in an area that has been fully developed for many decades. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The Real Estate is located in an area that has been fully developed for many decades. The Real Estate is located on Dubuque Street and is connected to City services. In addition, approximately ten (10) years ago, Dubuque Street adjacent to and in the area of the Real Estate was reconstructed, including improving and moving utility infrastructure in the area and construction of a new bridge nearby. Therefore, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities exist to support the Real Estate. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The Real Estate is located on Dubuque Street which has four (4) traffic lanes. In addition, approximately ten (10) years ago, Dubuque Street was reconstructed and improved and the driveway on the Real Estate reconstructed to connect to the reconstructed Dubuque Street. Therefore, adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on Dubuque Street. 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. It is Evans’ position that the Real Estate conforms to other applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is located, including that the lot area and building floor area of the Real Estate are large enough to support Evans’ intended occupancy. 7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. The area in which the Real Estate is located is fully developed and Evans intended use of the Real Estate is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Classification and the other properties in the vicinity. 14-5A-4F-7: Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances The Phi Delta Theta House Association of Iowa City (‘Phi Delta”) real estate located at 729 N. Dubuque St., Iowa City (Real Estate) presents a unique circumstance regarding the area available for parking as compared to the past use of the site and the site topography. The applicant is requesting a parking reduction of up to 50% of the required parking for these reasons. The site has been used previously as a Fraternity House with more than 40 roomers. Review of the aerial photography available from Johnson County shows that the parking lot that is currently on site has existed, in its current configuration, for several decades. A portion of the driveway was reconstructed with the N. Dubuque St improvements that the City of Iowa City completed several years ago. The site topography limits the ability to expand the parking area beyond its current size. There are steep slopes to the west of the parking area and the hill on N. Dubuque Street continues to rise as you drive south in front of the property. The parking area is located between 5 and 25 feet below the elevation of N. Dubuque Street. The number of parking spaces required by code is excessive in this case based on the intended use of the site as a fraternal living space. Further, the use of the site for fraternal living for the past few decades with this same parking area as proposed has demonstrated that having few spaces than required by code still allows the site to function without adverse impacts. Requiring the applicant to meet the full parking requirements of the code would likely result in under- utilizing the property. July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting Discussion on Land Development Fees ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA Date: July 9, 2025 To: Board of Adjustment From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Fees Introduction On February 12, 2025 the Board heard a request for a drive-through at 21 Sturgis Corner Drive (EXC25-0001). As part of the staff recommendation, the following condition was recommended: • Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along Highway 6 East to be installed by the City at a future date. Fee to be determined by the City Engineer. Staff recommended the fee as opposed to installation of a sidewalk by the developer because intersection improvements at S. Riverside Dr. and Hwy 6 are likely to occur in the future. In addition, this portion of the highway does not have curb and gutter making it difficult for sidewalk installation. Given the context a fee is appropriate in this circumstance. During the Board discussion there were many questions related to the collection of the recommended fee and how and when it would be spent. This memo provides some background on the variety of fees that the City collects. City Fee Examples There are a variety of fees that the City collects as part of the land development process which are codified within Title 14 (Zoning) and Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) of the City Code. Depending on the type of fee, how the fees are spent and the timing of when the fees are spent varies. Neighborhood Open Space Fee: As part of residential subdivisions, the City requires the dedication of land or the payment of a fee in-lieu of land dedication for public parks and open space. The fee is calculated based on the fair market value of the land that would have otherwise been dedicated to the City as public open space/parkland. Fees collected must be spent within five years within the specific parkland district. Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee: As part of residential development within the Riverfront Crossings District, developers must either provide on-site income restricted units or pay an affordable housing in-lieu fee to the City. Fees collected must be spent on affordable housing development. Fees can only be spent within the Riverfront Crossings District and are updated annually through a resolution adopted by the City Council. There is no deadline by which the fees must be spent. Parking In-lieu Fee: For development within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District, developers may quality for a reduction in the required on-site parking. Where the City has approved a parking reduction, the developer must pay a fee for each space otherwise required. July 1, 2025 Page 2 The parking in-lieu fee is administratively adjusted on an annual basis. There is no deadline by which the fees must be spent. Cost Sharing for Street Upgrades: At the discretion of the City, subdivisions may be approved that access existing public streets but do not meet City standards, provided the subdivider contributes toward the future reconstruction of that street to ensure compliance with City standards. If the City permits a development to access a street that does not meet City standards, the subdivider’s contribution varies depending on street type. For example, with collector streets, the subdivider is required to contribute 50% of the cost to upgrade a collector street to City standards for that segment of the street that abuts the subject property, with the City contributing the other 50%. Costs to reconstruct the street to City standards will be determined by the City Engineer. Fees are determined during the subdivision process and must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. There is no deadline by which the fees must be spent. July 9, 2025 Board of Adjustment Meeting PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL MARCH 12, 2025 – 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo. Paula Swygard, Julie Tallman MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh OTHERS PRESENT: Staci Humiston, Ashley Cooney, Tom Yates, Ross Nusser, Tim Ruth, Jim Niebuhr, Diane Niebuhr CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC25-0002: An application submitted by Staci Humiston of Reach For Your Potential requesting a special exception to allow the expansion of a daycare use in a Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at 1839 and 1849 B Street. Baker opened the public hearing. Walsh began the staff report with an aerial view of the property noting this application was previously approved to become a daycare use by Reach For Your Potential. Walsh explained both of the properties are zoned RS-5, as is the surrounding neighborhood. Reach For Your Potential requested a special exception approval for the daycare use first in November 2024 and was approved at the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. Improvement of the alley to City standards from the western property line east to 5th Avenue. b. Development of a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing over the alley from the building to the play area, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Any new pedestrian routes through the site that directly abut parking areas shall be separated by a raised curb or barrier that is a minimum of five inches (5") in height. 3. Provide screening to the S2 standard between parking areas and adjacent properties along the east and west property lines as shown in the site plan. 4. Outdoor lights must be brought into compliance with current outdoor lighting Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 2 of 20 standards found at Article 14-5G of the City Code. Reach For Your Potential purchased 1849 B Street in February of this year with the intent of expanding daycare operations and taking on children and staff from a nearby closing daycare. The daycare intends to accommodate up to 140 children. Walsh explained the reason for the addition is because the zoning code does not consider existing building constraints or necessary usable space needed to efficiently accommodate children and staff. Therefore, by taking on more children they needed some additional area to accommodate them. The building addition would provide more space and an interior redesign which allows age groups to be spaced out appropriately and receive the necessary staffing. The maximum amount of children allowed will be limited by the parking constraints. The applicant did hold a good neighbor meeting in March. Walsh shared some photos of the two properties as well as the site plan. He pointed out the traffic flow is intended to come off of B Street and flow in towards the south and then down and out the alley. To accommodate the additional children and staff Reach For Your Potential has proposed to expand the parking area, which will be located south of the alley, and they do include an S5 fence, which is a six foot opaque fence, as well as shrubs along the perimeter of the fence to further buffer from nearby uses. The outdoor play area has been moved north of the alley, located just behind the new addition, and would be approximately 4100 square feet. Walsh next reviewed the specific and general approval criteria. The Board of Adjustment is charged with approving, approving with conditions or denying the application based on the facts presented. The specific criteria for the daycare use standards are (a) the required interior activity areas and child daycare centers must contain at least 35 square feet as usable interior floor space per child. Walsh noted there are some areas of the building which are excluded, such as reception areas, kitchens and storage areas. However, if the cafeteria doubles as an activity space the zoning code will count that space as well. Walsh stated the subject property is about 6800 square feet of interior floor space used for daycare purposes, which could accommodate up to 196 children. The applicant proposes the subject property for a daycare use of 140 children, and the applicant has agreed to take on the children and staff from a closing daycare. The proposed addition is about 3600 square foot and intended to provide more space for the children and staff coming in, but it's not significantly increasing the maximum daycare occupancy that's allowed because the parking requirements will limit the daycare to 140 children. Walsh explained this is due to requiring stacking spaces and the site is constrained because there's only seven stacking spaces that can fit on site. Next is (b), child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play area of not less than 100 square feet. Walsh reiterated this property is zoned residential and all playground equipment will be located outside of the front and side setbacks. The site plan includes an outdoor play area of about 4100 square feet, which means they could accommodate up to 41 children at any one time. He also noted if there is overflow in this location, they are within walking distance to a nearby park as well. Staff recommends the condition that outdoor play area be enclosed by a four foot opaque fence and that it be screened to the S2 standard along the east property line to provide additional screening and buffering from residential uses. Criteria (c) is the use must provide a drop off and pick up area in a location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access. As mentioned, most of the traffic is intended to flow in one direction that's coming in off of B Street, continuing through the property south and then exiting through the alley. Walsh noted the alley is currently unimproved, and the proposed use is for a Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 3 of 20 daycare accommodating up to 140 children which will significantly increase the daily traffic within the alley so due to the anticipated increase in daily traffic beyond what is typically experienced in an alley, staff recommends a condition that Reach For Your Potential improve the alley to City standards from the western property line to 5th Avenue, the shortest possible improvement route to a street, prior to occupancy to ensure safe and efficient travel through the site. Adjacent property owners will be responsible for snow clearance and the City would maintain the paved alleyway surface. The subject property proposes 34 parking spaces, 20 of these which will be located south of the alley, and 14 are existing non-conforming spaces located along the building. The site also has seven stacking spaces west of the building on a nine foot wide directional drive. Walsh stated the stacking and parking spaces are adequate to accommodate the 140 children and 14 staff members proposed. Also the proposed site plan shows four parking spaces for bikes that is required, parking and stacking spaces are connected to the building through pedestrian routes. Next is (d) that a sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the center to the adjacent public right of way. Walsh stated the subject property has a sidewalk from the main entrance to the public right of way, however there is no existing sidewalk along B Street, nor is there plans for one to be installed. The site plan proposes new pedestrian paths with raised curbs through the property along the west and south sides of the building that will help minimize the extent to which users must walk across drives or aisles. Staff does recommend a condition that any new pedestrian routes through the site have a raised curb to help ensure pedestrian safety. Staff also recommends the condition that a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing be constructed over the alley. Finally, criteria (e) is if the proposed use is located in a residential zone or Central Planning District, it must comply with the multifamily site development standards. Both 1839 and 1849 B Street are in the residential zone and in the Central Planning District so the current development and future development must comply with the multifamily standards. Walsh explained the building and site meet some of the multifamily development standards but doesn't comply with all of them such as the standards related to existing parking locations, screening, the design of the surface parking, mechanical equipment locations and some of the additional Central Planning District standards. Walsh stated that all existing non-compliant features are either considered elements of non-conforming structure or development, which does allow this change of use and the new construction would be required to comply with all these zoning code requirements. Walsh next moved on to the general standards required for all special exceptions. First is the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. He stated the existing building, proposed addition and site characteristics are well suited for a daycare use and the proposed use will provide services that are beneficial to the neighborhood, and potential negative impacts due to increased traffic are mitigated, as discussed below. Second, the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walsh stated the proposed daycare use will primarily be within the building, there is that outdoor play area but that limits to no more than 41 children at one time. Additionally, this outdoor play area will also be screened from nearby areas to help mitigate these impacts. Additional traffic is likely to be generated by the proposed use during business Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 4 of 20 hours, but the proposed traffic flow, site layout and recommended conditions will help to mitigate potential negative impacts. New parking areas south of the alley are set back and screened from the abutting uses and staff does recommend a condition that the parking area be screened by a S5 fence with a minimum height of six feet, and that the fence perimeter be surrounded by additional S2 screening. Walsh explained a S5 fence would be a solid privacy fence. Staff also recommends S2 screening between existing parking areas and the outdoor play area from adjacent properties along the east and west property lines. Third, 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. Walsh stated the surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed. The proposed building addition will increase the size of previously approved daycare facility, and the intent is to provide beneficial services that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding property. Additionally, the conditions staff has proposed are intended to help mitigate any potential negative effects. Fourth criteria is adequate utilities, access roads and drainage has been, or will be, provided. Again, this is a built out area so all utilities, access roads and facilities are already established. It is anticipated that the alley will see a significant increase in vehicle use. This increased traffic through the site is expected to accelerate the alleyway deterioration without improvements, so improving the alley to the City standards would provide a paved surface maintained by the City for the life of the pavement that is capable of accommodating the additional traffic volume. If it's left unimproved, the alley would likely require significant ongoing maintenance from the adjacent property owners, and some of this maintenance for the surface could include potholes or other unmaintained areas that could cause vehicle damage. Walsh stated the conditions staff are proposing are intended to mitigate this effect. Fifth, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress. As mentioned, this front of the site is accessed from B Street and the rear is accessed from the alley that enters and exits on to Garden Street and 5th Avenue. Walsh stated most of the traffic is expected to flow in one direction into the site from B Street and out towards the alley. Some staff and drop off traffic will utilize the alley to access additional parking spaces in the rear of the building. Staff recommends a condition of approval that “do not enter” signage and one way pavement markings are located on the property to direct traffic through the site and prevent any reverse traffic flow. Staff conditions will ensure the alley is improved to accommodate the increased traffic and can anticipate the future traffic volumes prior to occupancy of the site. No changes are proposed to the existing street access nor any new parking areas on the portion of the property north of the alley and will comply with all current standards. Sixth, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception on all other respects, conforms to the code. Walsh stated the subject property meets most of the standards in the single family RS-5 zone and multifamily site development standards. The building addition and all new site development standards will comply with the standards. Some elements of the site that are non-conforming will be brought into compliance with the current standards. Walsh explained that's things like landscape buffers that the existing parking doesn't currently have. Regarding lighting staff recommends a condition that all outdoor lighting, new or existing, be compliant with the standards for single family and two family uses. Staff also recommends all outdoor lighting be turned off by one hour after the business closes to limit the impacts of lighting on neighboring Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 5 of 20 properties. Finally, the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Walsh noted the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designated both these properties as residential and essential. The Central Planning District designates this area as private, institutional and single family and duplex. The Comprehensive Plan does support goods and services within convenient walking to residents and the proposed exception would expand an existing daycare use which is classified as private, institutional and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0002, with an expiration timeline of 12 months to allow enough time to receive approval of the site plan, alley improvements, and secure a building permit, to allow a daycare use expansion in a Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at 1839 and 1849 B Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. Improvement of the alley to City standards from the western property line east to 5th Avenue. b. Development of a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing over the alley from the building and play area to the parking area, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The outdoor play area be enclosed by a 4-foot-tall opaque fence to provide extra screening from the nearby residential uses. 3. Any new pedestrian routes through the site that directly abut parking areas shall be separated by a raised curb or barrier that is a minimum of five inches (5") in height. 4. Provide screening to the S2 standard between existing parking areas and the outdoor play area from adjacent properties along the east and west property lines as shown in the site plan dated 3/6/2025. 5. Provide screening of the new parking area with a 6'- 8' fence that meets the S5 standard and includes additional S2 screening around east, west, and south fence perimeter. 6. Provide "Do Not Enter" signage and one way pavement markings to direct traffic through the site. 7. Outdoor lighting, new and existing, be compliant with Section 14-5G-3, Standards for Single Family and Two Family Uses. 8. Outdoor lighting must be turned off by one hour after the business closes. Tallman noted on the site plan it shows nine parking spaces backing out into the improved alley, is that allowed. Walsh explained that is one of the non-conforming features. The code would say if the parking area has eight or more spaces, they can't back into an alley, but since this is existing use it's allowed to legally continue. Tallman noted on the west edge of those parking spaces there isn’t any kind of demarcation where the parking ends so any concern about interference with the one way is there drive that goes around the site and to the alley because if someone were to park west of that ninth space it would clog that up. Walsh confirmed there is a concern however this is just a concept and once they get the official site plan application they can work through that in more detail, but the spaces will be required to be fully striped. Tallman had a question about accessibility, the site plan calls out a lot of entrances with stoops, can they identify the accessible entrances to the building. Walsh noted on the plans where on Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 6 of 20 the eastern side there is an ADA ramp that will allow accessible access to the building. There's also an entryway along the north side that has a wheelchair ADA ramp, it is just identified on the plan as a stoop, but it’s actually an ADA ramp. Walsh also noted the applicant will be constructing an elevator to get up to the second floor. Baker asked when the use of this property was approved for a daycare use, what was the previously approved capacity. Walsh stated they didn't set a limit, the existing building area could accommodate up to 158 children per the zoning code but there are some interior building constraints that would limit the owner from actually reaching that maximum occupancy. Baker asked if that is why the limit was set to 140. Walsh stated they didn’t specifically set a limit of 140, the applicant is saying that they intend to have up to 140 children. Baker asked if they wanted to have more than 140 what would have to change. Walsh explained they would have to be able to accommodate all the parking requirements. He reiterated they're really limited by the amount of stacking spaces they can have on site and that requires every 20 children as one stacking space, which is why the limit is set to 140 because they can only fit seven stacking and loading spaces on the property. Baker asked if there's no other space for additional parking on the property and Walsh stated no, there is no space for additional stacking or loading spaces because those cannot extend into public rights of way. That is why they are limited by what's here and shown on the site. Staci Humiston (Executive Director, Reach For Your Potential) stated they are needing to expand the previous plan to meet the growing need for reliable, high quality child care in the community. This expansion is partly due to the closure of Loving Arms Early Learning Center, located in the St. Mark's Church currently. They will be leaving that location this fall and will be closing at that point, so they reached out to Reach For Your Potential after they received word that they were receiving a State grant and the week after the previous special exception was approved. They received notification in early January that they received this grant, which they were all very happy about and then a few days later they received a voice mail and contact information from Loving Arms, one of their board members, who wanted to discuss options for their enrolled children and their staff. Due to receiving the grant they were able to go ahead and discuss the ins and outs of possibly merging or buying, or all of the above and came down to whoever of their enrolled children will be coming over to Reach For Your Potential, and they'll be transitioning their staff as well. Humiston noted they have a couple people from there here today, the president of their parent board and the childcare director. Humiston stated as they take in more families it was obvious a need for the addition to the current building. Again, receiving this grant from the state actually helped them to be able to take all of the confirmed enrolled children to transition to Reach For Your Potential and they would not have been able to take the 45 confirmed otherwise based off of the number of kids in each room for the original building. When they decided that they would need to expand they were lucky to be able to purchase the property next door. Again, expanding allows them to better serve the children across all of the age groups, and it still maintains the quality and safety standards that are essential for early childhood care. Humiston stated while they may serve up to 140 children, and if that is a hard limit, there's really no other way to expand, even though the occupancy of the building is much higher than that. She noted it's important to think about while they may be serving up to 140 children, for traffic purposes, obviously there will not be 140 vehicles coming through every day. There may be multiple children per family or other modes of transportation used, whether it's by bus, by bike or other avenues. Also, the majority of that traffic will only occur twice per day, it's not an all-day thing with increased traffic every hour of the day. The majority will come in at 8am or just before (between 7am and 8am) and then for pick up the Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 7 of 20 majority will then be between 5pm and 6pm. The rest of the daytime there will not be increased traffic. There will be traffic in general, but it will be at a reduced in terms of amount of vehicles just because this also includes their staff and they have staff shifts that start at 3:00pm. Humiston also stated they do have set policy, which is subject to change, but for the foreseeable future the policy will be 50/50 at this point, where it's 50% are staff children and 50% are external children from the community, including Loving Arms. The goal of this center was to create a stable, accessible and affordable childcare option for any of the families in need on their staff which is greatly appreciated as it saves them from missing shifts at work. Humiston stated they appreciate the City support as they continue to strengthen the childcare availability in the community. Carlson asked what their hours of operation are. Humiston stated it has changed slightly, they originally were going to be open 8am to 8pm, but it was actually going to be 7:30am so people could drop off kids before 8am. However, now after agreeing to take the families from Loving Arms and contributing to their needs, they will now open at 6:30am because of the families that have jobs and start their work at 7am, but there's not a lot at that time, just a few. Then they will now close at 8:30pm to cover all the shifts for their staff as well. Carlson noted so the change in opening at 6:30am is not for their employees but it's for external people who are going to take advantage or use this facility. Humiston stated that drop off time may be used by their staff as well, they may have other jobs and can certainly utilize it that early. Carlson asked when Humiston thinks the vast majority of traffic will take place. Humiston stated mostly from 7am to 8am and then from 5pm to 6pm. Carlson noted it is their responsibility to improve the alleyway so how are they going to improve that. Humiston acknowledged at the last special exception approval it was required that they improve the alleyway by paving it and that it started on the west side of their property and it went all the way out to 5th Avenue. They obviously still plan to do that, since that's the flow of traffic that that they're going to need, but it probably will be one of the last things that they do just so that they don't have any issues with construction. Carlson noted at the last meeting it was stated that the City might pay for this paving, is that true or is Reach For Your Potential paying for this paving. Humiston stated the City is still paying for half. Carlson stated Reach For Your Potential and the other residents are responsible for maintaining the alleyway in the wintertime snow, so how do they plan upon going about this duty. Humiston stated they have a snow removal company, as well as help with the landscaping. She added if the neighbors, are not able to clear their areas Reach For Your Potential is planning to go ahead and just have their snow removal company go ahead and clear out to 5th Avenue for the safety of their parents and families and so staff feel comfortable. Carlson stated if adult daycare was included, they would need more space so is this only for children. Humiston confirmed this would be only for children, they already have an adult day care at their main office and will not be moving that. Tallman asked what other kinds of traffic they anticipate, such as food service deliveries during the day for meals and such. Humiston stated they don’t have any intention to use a food delivery service, most likely they will be shopping themselves and purchasing things. She acknowledged there's always packages and things, just like any other property, but that won’t be more than any normal residential area and between 8am and 5pm it should be pretty quiet. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 8 of 20 Baker asked how many people were at the Good Neighbor meeting. Humiston stated there were four neighbors present and everybody was positive. Baker noted regarding the question of maintenance of the alley the staff report talks about the adjacent owners being responsible for maintaining it, but Humiston just said that if the neighbors could not Reach For Your Potential would go ahead and do the whole alley so is that an implicit guarantee that Reach For Your Potential is going to maintain the alley period. Humiston acknowledge yes, for the most part. Russett noted the City will maintain the alley if it's improved to City standards, which is the condition, Reach For Your Potential is just responsible for snow removal. Humiston acknowledged Reach For Your Potential will accept full responsibility for the snow removal for the whole paved portion of the alley so it's not a safety hazard for their staff and families. Ashley Cooney (Parent Board President, Loving Arms Early Learning Center) stated they are currently located inside of St. Mark's Church on the east side of Iowa City, however the church has decided to end their tenancy this fall. Fortunately, Reach For Your Potential has graciously agreed to acquire their program. Cooney acknowledged they contacted Reach For Your Potential after the state grant was awarded so the original plan did not include Loving Arms. Without this new partnership, 75 children and nearly 50 staff members, a total of 250 people, including families, will effectively be without childcare and employment. She noted they also learned through their own scrambling process that the east side of Iowa City is a childcare desert, and running a childcare facility poses numerous challenges. Their program is thriving and simply in need of a new home. Additionally, another childcare center closed recently, and they are seeing an influx in families desperately searching for high quality childcare. With this expansion Reach For Your Potential will be able to launch a childcare center with the necessary support to provide high quality childcare and save numerous jobs by transitioning the Loving Arms staff to a new center. Without this expansion, they will be greatly limited in the number of community members they can serve and parents will have to make tough decisions about having to quit their job and stay home if they are not able to take all of their families with them due to lack of childcare availability in the area. In addition to the expansion of the physical building, the extended outdoor space will provide more play area for the children. Cooney stated this facility is fulfilling a much needed gap in the community by offering additional childcare spaces and extended hours which is a service that's rarely provided in the childcare space. Together they have found a unique opportunity to join forces between two organizations with track records to successfully build a strong community organization. Tallman asked how many children were at Loving Arms. Cooney stated they currently have 75 children and have 45 who have confirmed that they are moving over to Reach For Your Potential. The other families are waiting for more information before they confirm that they are in need of childcare. Tom Yates (1901 B Street) lives at the property to the east of the now purchased property 1849 B Street so it'll be his property on the west side of the large fence. Frankly, in terms of all this, he is fine and glad to see good social use for this building, which has been sitting empty or with little use for the past several years. He wanted to buy 1849 B Street at one point, he put a bid in on it when it was open for auction but did not get it. He would have torn that house down. Yates stated his only concerns are he doesn’t know what the relationship of this Board is to Public Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 9 of 20 Works and safety, but somebody needs to take a look at how B Street and 5th Avenue from the City High Court Street parking lot operate. The south facing stop sign at the corner of 5th Avenue at B Street seems to merely be a suggestion to those people, mostly kids, who come down from City High. Yates has lived there for a long time and taught at City High for a very long time and he walked to work because that was the safest thing to do. The morning is not as bad, especially now that the high schools have changed to a 9:00am start. There's not that much traffic going to City High from that way and he doesn’t know how much the Court Street renovation will impact traffic, and that is something else that will need to be taken into consideration at some point, what traffic gets rerouted to this neighborhood. However, the real issue is after school, when the children are in a hurry to leave, B Street is at an angle and 5th Avenue is a straight shot north/south, so the sight lines are difficult. 5th Avenue also runs slightly downhill, so the kids think it's a good idea to go speeding down to the suggested stop sign and the access from Court Street, up to the area and all the way to the corner where 5th Avenue makes a jog and is slightly humped, and the sight lines are not great. Yates stated what City Public Works or traffic needs to do is to take a look at this, it may not be in this Board’s purview but that would be one of the important things to take a look at. Yates noted the other thing that one of the neighbors pointed out last week at the meeting was that the water and sewer infrastructure needs to be examined, again if that's the sort of thing this Board could suggest to Public Works, they've had water main breaks, especially in the winter. The pipes are old in that neighborhood, and he is assuming that the daycare is going to want and need good facilities coming into the building. Baker noted staff could get with Public Works about these issues that were raised. Walsh noted that Public Works will see the site plan when it officially goes into an application and after the good neighbor meeting he did reach out to the transportation staff about the concerns along B Street and speed bumps and the stop sign. However, it is his understanding at this time there's no immediate availability to make any improvements along these streets, but they have at least looked at these particular issues. Ross Nusser (Urban Acres Real Estate) wanted to give support for the application and for the applicant. Nusser also wanted to cite a few sources that the community has put forward to guide how they address childcare. In Better Together 2030, which was a shared vision for Johnson County Iowa and collaborated on by the City of Iowa City, the mayor, the City Manager, as well as the other governing bodies around here, it states that one of the priorities is to ensure that all neighborhoods have affordable childcare. It also states that the childcare shortage in Iowa touches everyone, not just parents. Providers spend a great deal of time nurturing and caring for children but are often met with low wages and lack of benefits in return, leading to fewer providers. For every available slot in Iowa, there are three children needing care for every available slot. The substantial deficit in care forces many parents to leave the workforce and stay home with their children. When the workforce suffers, the economy suffers, childcare is a community issue, therefore they must come together to address it. Tim Ruth (Partner, Reach For Your Potential) owns quite a bit of property over on the south side off Sycamore where he partners with Reach For Your Potential. They also own several homes for Reach For Your Potential staff members. Ruth noted from the standpoint of working with the group and the company they're a stellar group to work with. What they say they're going to do, they do and Humiston is an amazing director. Ruth stated they are currently building a new home for challenged individuals at 2821 Farragut, and it'll be a zero entry lot. Ruth has been a general contractor all his life and to address the utilities, they will be excavating the water line in Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 10 of 20 the area and have to put in a six inch water main to the building because of requirements for sprinklers. They'll be putting in a new domestic water service as well. He noted these come at a large cost to the individual, people don't realize that the sprinkler pipes are expensive and they will probably be at $35,000 to get this done, but just to say they will be improving the sewers and they've had cameras down them so the infrastructure is not an issue because it'll have to be corrected to be utilized. Also the electrical services overhead will have to be updated, because it's not large enough for what is needed for elevators. Regarding the width of the alley, that may be dictated not by anyone, but by the trees as there's existing trees along the alley and the City will have to deal with those tree because he is sure the neighbors might not be happy if they lost trees. Regarding snow removal, Reach For Your Potential’s snow removal contract will be there early in the morning for safety of the individuals coming for daycare, Ruth stated they see it from the standpoint of having a special needs child and having the ability to know that that their providers have daycare to take care of their children, so they can come to work and not have to maybe have a student or one of their children home alone because there is no daycare provider. Ruth doesn’t think the community can find a better partner to have, Reach For Your Potential has houses all over Iowa City, especially on the east side, and they're great partner for the community. Tallman asked about the trees in the alleyway, if the trees are in the alley then the City would have some freedom deciding to keep them or take them down. Ruth confirmed yes, for the city but trees on private property is a different matter. Tallman could see where there might be some surprises on the part of the people that abut the alley and thought that that a tree was on their property and it wasn't, but that's going to have to be a City issue. Ruth also added regarding the speed bumps, he was told today by the lady in charge of that program that they're not doing any speed bumps this year at all and they're going to rewrite their entire program, because every community doesn't really need them, they want them, but they don't necessarily need them. Carlson asked Humiston if the outside people who are coming in are primarily from the neighborhood and are they going to try to focus on people who are living in that area. Humiston replied they will certainly accept any children from the area but will also accept outside of the immediate area because she doesn’t know if they'll have that many children in that immediate area that need childcare. She is also unsure of where all the Loving Arms children live, they assume due to location they are living on the east side of Iowa City but can't say that for a fact. Additionally, their employees may be coming from anywhere in Iowa City. Carlson stated looking at the concern about the traffic in the alleyway, if a lot of people are coming from other places that is going to impact the amount of traffic on the streets so that is something to think about. Humiston acknowledged that is definitely something that they've been trying to figure out and what their plans would be to mitigate that. However like she said before, they have one shift that starts at 3:00pm and have one shift that starts at 9:00am however maybe more community children would be 7:00am to 8:00am and there may be just a few of their staff that will come in just after 8:00am. It’s just hard to know or guarantee because not everybody would work a 9-3 shift, but that's something that could help mitigate traffic congestion. Carlson asked if the community children will only have access or availability from 8:00am until 5:00pm. Humiston replied they will have full access between 6:30am and 8:30pm. She noted Loving Arms currently closes at 6:00pm everyday so those families are used to coming in between 5:00pm and 6:00pm, but she can't guarantee that they wouldn't extend past 6:00pm. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 11 of 20 Carlson asked about capacity, right now the capacity is for 140 children and is that 140 children for a 24 hour period or is there a certain number of children during the day, and some of them leave and some of them come in, is there a flexible amount. Humiston stated it's 140 children at any one time because they cannot expand beyond that, the parking just doesn't allow it and they're happy with that number as it is. Jim Niebuhr (415 5th Avenue) has been a resident in this neighborhood since December 1982 and has seen a change, flux, so forth. He stated he is a little unorganized since he just learned this, he was out of state when the mailings came out so he had three days to prepare. He does have a few concerns, number one the childcare issue. He acknowledged there is probably not a person in the room that doesn't grasp that situation and this is not about the need for childcare. His alarm is more one of does the shoe fit in this neighborhood. Zoning is for a reason, there's residential, commercial, industrial, etc. and his concern is where's the threshold for this neighborhood, what's the capacity. There's been a lot of discussion about the traffic in the alley. Maybe it's not a good situation and he could give a history of where are the no parking sides going to be, this side or that, which was raised because of the issue of garbage collection and blocking the streets. Niebuhr wants everyone to be aware that there's another situation just three or four properties to the west, a low income special needs facility, and they have a transport van that when it stops as the ramp that comes out and sits down, it blocks the street for quite some time. If one were to forget and turn to the right at the aforementioned stop sign, they're going to be sitting there for a good long while. That came up with this parking on the side of the streets because what about a fire, what about an ambulance, etc., traffic is probably the major concern he has, and the flow of it. His neighbor Yates already alluded to the Lamaze course that takes place frequently as school closes. He has seen them go from the parking lot to that stop sign and reach approximately 50-55 mph and take a little wiggle less turn corner, it would think almost on two wheels, so what are the solutions. Some of the obstacles he sees to the proposal are the capacity and the size of it. For the folks here, does their neighborhood include something like this, with this capacity, this size of operation. Niebuhr did attend the previous meetings, and was in attendance for those, and he walked away saying he can live with 40 kids, which is what he heard as before, but up to 160 or thereabouts, seems like a big bite for that neighborhood and the traffic pattern. Can they solve the east side problem in one neighborhood alone is there a balance in that. These recommendations, and they're mostly opinions, nobody's lived there like the neighbors have. Additionally, the burden of proof, as he understands in these situations, is not on the neighbors. Niebuhr again mentioned balance, maybe he is a little sore from losing an elementary school to the county and having a similar capacity shoved into the corner of the street. He sounds negative but it is not as far as the operation of Reach For Your Potential, he applauds that, this just feels like a lot of congestion, or at least activity, and in the health, safety, comfort and welfare, how much of that has been affected, and what's the metric for proving that. Again, he’s not negative against the concept, he just wonders about the scale, and one particular thing he would hope to get out of this, if this is approved, he is wondering, as a builder himself, what happened to the building code about not enlarging the footprint of a non-conforming structure, and this is approximately a 62% increase of that footprint. This is going to affect the neighborhood, and how much is too much. He noted they could have used a childcare center themselves nearby so that's not the issue, it’s just the appropriateness and the scale. Baker asked staff to respond to the question about expansion of a non-conforming use that was part of the consideration in this application. Walsh explained this is not a non-conforming use, it Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 12 of 20 was approved to be a daycare in November and it's allowed to continue as a daycare if this is approved or denied. Regarding the building code and the non-conforming structure he doesn’t believe there is any non-conformities to the existing structure, the non-conformity is related to the existing parking, it’s not building related. Baker had a question to make sure he understands Niebuhr’s concern, it is not the daycare, per se, being in that location, it’s the proposed capacity of this particular project. Niebuhr confirmed that was correct, it is the capacity and the size of the structure. Diane Niebuhr (415 5th Avenue) stated her concern is for someone to explain how they're going to have enough parking. Are there codes for how much parking is needed to have 140 kids in this place. If most of them are going to be dropped off probably about 8:00am and picked up about 5:00pm, and if there are two kids in each family, that's a lot of cars trying to park and pick up a kid or drop a kid off. Walsh explained there is adequate parking on site, every 20 children require one stacking space so at 140 children and the staff, the seven stacking spaces shown is sufficient. Niebuhr asked what's a stacking space. Walsh explained it’s the spaces for individuals to pull up, park for a quick moment and drop their children off, and then pull away down the alley. There's also the requirement that one parking space is required per staff so with 20 staff they have the 20 required parking spaces. Then with one additional parking space for every 10 children required, at 140 children that's 14 spaces for a total of 34 parking spaces and seven stacking spaces, and that is provided on site. Niebuhr stated the daycare her kids went to was a lot smaller than this and they had a lot more parking spaces than this place does so she is just wondering how that's going to work out. They're going to come out, walk from the stacking spot all the way around to some door, and then they're going to get their kid, and then they have to walk back out to these stacking spaces, to get their kids in their car seats and everything. She really doesn’t know how that will work. Surely someone has done some kind of a study to know how many parking spaces are needed to have to they have that many kids. The other thing she would like to know is if things go sideways for people in the neighborhood, who do they call, she has also heard that the daycare is going to be open, not only for the extended hours, but on holidays and what will that do to parking. If people in the neighborhood want to have friends over where are they going to park if the daycare folks are parking on the streets on holidays or whatever. As her husband said, the main concern is the magnitude of it, it seems really big for a small neighborhood. Humiston confirmed the daycare will be open on holidays, and the sole reason for that is that they have staff working shifts on holidays. She noted they can't be open on weekends unfortunately, but if a holiday is during the week, they need to be open to accommodate their own staff. The most likely scenario is that community children or external children will likely not attend those days, but she can't guarantee that, but Loving Arms is not open on holidays so they're used to that part. Baker noted someone would be available all the time in case the neighbor has a concern. Humiston stated yes, they would contact the new childcare director, she's currently with Loving Arms, for some reason, she's not available, they could contact Humiston at the Reach For Your Potential office and they do have an on call number for emergencies. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 13 of 20 Tallman noted following up with the concern about the vans taking up street space does the daycare have vans currently servicing or bringing children to the daycare and do they have children with disabilities that come in a specially equipped vans, and if so where would they be dropped off. Humiston stated as of right now they don't have any confirmed children with special needs that would come in, but if they did it would be a Johnson County Seats bus. She assumes the busses would come in and instead of stopping on the street and blocking traffic, they would come in either to the parking lot or stop in the alley for that time. Carlson asked if all children are going to be let off on the property or what if people decide to let children off in the street. Humiston stated they would not allow that, if that happens they'll get a warning and then if it happens again they’ll have to discuss operationally what they will do. They don't have that a policy set at this moment, but they're working on the policy because that's not safe for anybody. Nusser wanted to briefly give some light on the search for the property and that having locations for the daycare and new construction was explored previously, but the amount that it would cost to build new construction was totally prohibitive. He also noted the previous application was for 100 children, the reason why 40 is a number that's being thrown around tonight is that there was some confusion as to what the opening number of enrollments was. Additionally, keep in mind that that application came before this Board prior to any notification of closures of daycare so this is in large part a response to the closure of daycares. Humiston pointed out also they had the good neighbor meeting and there were only four that attended. They have also spoken to the neighbor to the west, and she approves of the project, they heard from the neighbor to the east tonight, who approves of the project, and the one property to the south, behind the parking lot, is actually being transferred ownership now, it was just purchased, or they're closing very soon, and they also approve of the project. Baker closed the public hearing. Swygard moved to recommend approval of EXC25-0002, with an expiration timeline of 12 months to allow enough time to receive approval of the site plan, alley improvements, and secure a building permit, to allow a daycare use expansion in a Low Density Single- Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at 1839 and 1849 B Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. Improvement of the alley to City standards from the western property line east to 5th Avenue. b. Development of a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing over the alley from the building and play area to the parking area, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The outdoor play area be enclosed by a 4-foot-tall opaque fence to provide extra screening from the nearby residential uses. 3. Any new pedestrian routes through the site that directly abut parking areas shall be separated by a raised curb or barrier that is a minimum of five inches (5") in height. 4. Provide screening to the S2 standard between existing parking areas and the outdoor play area from adjacent properties along the east and west property lines Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 14 of 20 as shown in the site plan dated 3/6/2025. 5. Provide screening of the new parking area with a 6'- 8' fence that meets the S5 standard and includes additional S2 screening around east, west, and south fence perimeter. 6. Provide "Do Not Enter" signage and one way pavement markings to direct traffic through the site. 7. Outdoor lighting, new and existing, be compliant with Section 14-5G-3, Standards for Single Family and Two Family Uses. 8. Outdoor lighting must be turned off by one hour after the business closes. Russo seconded the motion. Swygard mention that she is very happy to see the outdoor lighting addressed in the staff recommendations, which had not been addressed previously, but the Board had placed a condition on it, and including the fact that they need to be turned off one hour after the business closes. Baker understands the concern of the neighbors here that it is a dramatic change in the use of a property that's basically been underused for a while, but he doesn’t share the pessimism of the neighbors and thinks this will work out fine. The owners and operators are going to be very aware of concerns and will have to respond to them if something comes up. He also has a minor concern with the response from staff regarding Public Works looking at this area and saying nothing to do right now, and the little that he’s been around that area, especially the issue of the stop sign, there just seems to be something that Public Works is missing. There are areas where stop signs are illuminated, or crosswalk signs are illuminated in a way that attention is drawn to the sign and makes it much more difficult to ignore, hopefully even in a teenager's mind. He hopes that the Public Works will take another look at that area again. Carlson is really concerned about the fact that the occupancy went up almost 50% and what is an appropriate size of a daycare for a residential area such as this. It’s not that she doesn't want a daycare, but wishing doesn't make it so and right now they’re looking at this pie in the sky thing, but when it's built and the neighbors deal with it, she thinks they need to take into consideration that the neighbors have investments in their property. Some of them have lived there a long time and their needs and wants need to be respected. She acknowledged there are so many great things about this, but she’s also nervous. She does think this group is much better at attempting to deal with these problems than other groups. Russo notes he lives two doors up from Longfellow school, it's an established neighborhood and the houses have been there since the 1920s and 1930s, etc., and a lot of the population is aging. He moved there in 2002 and the traffic is a pain in the neck for 20 minutes in the morning and maybe 30 minutes in the afternoon. The neighborhood has to maneuver their schedules around that traffic, but if that traffic weren't there and if that school weren't there, he doesn’t know that he would want to live in that neighborhood. What he is saying is that this is going to breathe an incredible breath of fresh air into the neighborhood and into the property values. Having kids around is a pretty spectacular thing and this group demonstrates an amazing commitment to the community. They are forward looking and are willing to consider all of the issues so he is sure they will address them. This is a win, win for everybody in the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 15 of 20 Swygard stated regarding agenda item EXC25-0002 she does concur with the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report of meeting date, March 12, 2025, 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 and conditions in the staff report for the approval of this exception. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Baker 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. DISCUSSION ON PLACEMENT OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA: Russett noted at the last meeting the Board requested that there be a discussion on how items are placed on the Board's agenda. There was a memo in the agenda packet and staff also received two pieces of correspondence late in the day today regarding this item that were shared with the Board via email, and hard copies are at each Board member’s spot tonight. Russett first started with special exceptions and variances and wanted to explain the job that staff does in their role in making sure that applications are ready and are presented to the Board in a timely manner. Special exceptions and variances are discussed in the zoning code in 14- 8C-2 two where there's a section that details the application filing information and references application schedules. Russett noted this does not apply to appeals. In the Board packet there was also the application deadline schedule, and the reason that staff provides this is to ensure that staff has time to review applications, to prepare a staff report, and to publicly notice the applications that they're going to be on the agenda. Staff’s role is to assist applicants, to notify applicants of those deadlines, but also to be reasonable in the application of the deadline schedule. Russett gave a couple of examples with two specific cases. The first is 21 Sturgis Drive, which was heard by the Board at the last meeting. Russett explained this is very typical of how these applications come to them. Oftentimes, applicants will just originally reach out to staff with some questions about doing some type of project and it requires a special exception, so what's the special exception, what's the process, what's the application entail? For 21 Sturgis Drive the applicant first reached out to Walsh the beginning of November 2024 and he had several conversations with the applicant in November and December. Staff reached out to their colleagues in Public Works and Transportation Planning to get questions answered, staff coordinates all of that. Staff explained to the applicant what application materials were needed and staff received the application on January 10, 2025 which met the deadline for the Board to hear that at the February meeting. The application heard tonight was a little bit different, it was originally heard by the Board in November 2024, but their plans changed due to the closure of the other daycare. Staff received an application after the deadline for the daycare discussed tonight but decided to move that forward to the agenda for tonight for several reasons. One, staff was familiar with the project as they had just reviewed it a few months ago. Two, they were still able to have a good neighbor meeting and were still able to publicly notice the meeting. Finally, staff also felt that due to the critical need of daycare facilities in the community it was important to not have them wait until April simply because they were a couple days late. So that is an example of staff trying to be reasonable and move these forward as quickly as possible. Appeals are different than special exceptions for a couple different reasons. One is that most of Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 16 of 20 the work related to an appeal is done prior to submittal of an appeal. The appellant is required in the information that they provide staff to identify the grounds for the appeal. Staff has already issued the building permit, staff has already approved the site plan, what the appellant is appealing is from a staff's decision. Staff has already done work documenting why they came to the decision that they came to. The second reason that is that appeals can be used as a tactic to slow down development and this greatly impacts property owners’ ability to move forward with the project, and delays can be costly. So the City’s role in appeals is to work to ensure they are heard as quickly as possible by the Board, which is the stay of proceedings. If staff receives an appeal, whatever they are appealing, that work has to stop, and they are not allowed to move forward with construction. As Russett mentioned before that greatly impacts cost and timeline of these projects. There's also a specific deadline outlined in the Board’s procedural rules for when appeals must be submitted. The appellant has to submit the appeal within 30 days of whenever the action took place. For example, if it's the issuance of a building permit, the appellant can't submit an appeal more than 30 days after that building permit is issued. The other part is the City cannot accept an appeal if it was submitted more than 15 calendar days after construction work started. Russett noted those are hard deadlines for appeals. Lastly, Russett covered what the powers of the Board are based on what is in the zoning code. The Board shall have the following powers, to hear and decide appeals, to hear and decide applications for special exceptions and to also consider variances. Russett stated this is the same as what is laid out in the state code, hearing and deciding appeals, special exceptions and variances. Carlson noted for special exceptions there are times when there are months between the time that they apply for a special exception, and it comes to the Board. Russett explained in those cases staff has usually been in contact with the applicant for months before they even submit an application. Carlson stated then the month between the filing and the Board review is to give staff time to go through the findings and to prepare the report for the Board. Russett confirmed yes but it's not only preparing the staff report, but a site plan is required when they submit their application, and staff has to review the site plan. Sometimes there's changes and they have to provide comments. The applicant then has to submit revisions, so there's some back and forth that happens with staff and the applicant during that time frame. Russo asked if there is a vetting of the legitimacy of the appeal, in other words, it can't be groundless. Dulek stated it can be groundless, and then there's a stop work order, it's not groundless until the Board decides that it's groundless and the Board has to explain why. Baker noted in this particular recent appeal the Board heard, without relitigating the issue, a stop work order had been issued for that property. Dulek confirmed a stop work order was issued. Russo asked if they filed in a bond with the appeal. Dulek replied no, but that's why if they can see construction in 15 days they have to appeal within 15 days because they're putting more time and effort and cost into the project. Carlson noted the case that was before the Board in February is done and over but she wants to look ahead to other cases that may come before them as an appeal and look to see if there are some changes that they need to make to make sure that the regulations are clear and Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 17 of 20 concise, so that everybody can understand them and there's no confusion as to what needs to be done and when in order to do it. One of the things is it says it has to be filed within a reasonable time, is such appeal, and it's 15 days. So, if someone sees something they are not sure if is correct they have 15 days to come to the city clerk and file an appeal. She noted from this it seems that they have 15 days to get their case together and most times people who appeal need to contact a lawyer, have them make time to read this, etc. She understands not wanting to cost the person who is doing the building more money, but they need to weigh so that both parties feel that the Board is objective to both of their sides, and right now she is wondering if they are. Going back to that particular case, Baker stated but it's his understanding that in the staff report for that particular case the applicant had asked for a deferral before the staff report was written, but the staff report did not mention the request for a deferral. Dulek noted there's not a staff report, there's an appeal. An appeal is challenging a decision by staff so staff doesn't make a report like they did tonight, they defend their decision, but the but the person appealing goes first because they've got to explain what it is they are appealing. Baker noted the Board first heard about this request for a deferral at the meeting itself. Russett stated they did not request a deferral, staff told them when the meeting was to be held and they wanted it at the next month, not sure that is called a deferral, they just disagreed with when staff put this on the agenda. Dulek added that the Board was represented by outside counsel, not City attorneys, for this very reason as they don't want to be conflicted in supporting staff. The Board gets an outside attorney to represent the Board. Baker is trying to figure out what the Board can do in this situation, a case comes to the meeting and the Board finds out that the appellant wanted a different date. There was some confusion about what the Board could do at that time, does the Board have a right to agree with the person appealing and say they’re not going to hear this appeal until the next meeting or until a specific date. Dulek stated the Board can do that, they just have to realize that there's somebody on the other side. Russett added the Board also has the power to move it to the next week, they don't have to move it to the next formal meeting. The Board has the right to overrule the hearing date set by staff, accepting the fact that there are consequences to that for the person who's actually building. Carlson noted that when voting they have to have a finding of facts and have to have facts if they vote against something. In everything that they talk about, they have to support what they're saying by facts. That particular evening one side said that it was not appropriate for the Board to hear the case and that it should have been postponed for a month. The attorney for Board said no, that it was legal to move forward, but he didn't state any facts. So she is concerned and do they need to put a few things into their procedural rules so that everybody understands that there are certain things that need to happen. Baker stated if the Board wants to make it completely set in concrete and clear they can simply say if an applicant or appellant is one day late they have to go to the next meeting. Or they have to decide what they feel is the fair thing to do, if an application is a day or two late, do they Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 18 of 20 go ahead and schedule it at the regular time, or is there some discretion involved. Staff has to have some reasonable discretion and the person making the appeal evidently did not make a compelling reason to have the Board wait to hear the case Tallman asked if there is an item on the agenda and the Board reviews the item on the agenda and then comes to the meeting, then at the meeting the Board becomes aware of the person making the appeal, perhaps has a reason, a good reason, to request more time, the Board can’t be told ahead of time that there is a request for more time. Dulek again stated the Board is represented by someone not from the City’s office so it will be up to that attorney how they want to proceed. But yes, the decision will happen at the meeting. Baker noted the staff has reasonable flexibility on scheduling, because these are not rules, these are guidelines, and if the Board disagrees with that the Board can change it at that meeting. Swygard stated there was a lot of information thrown out about terminology, quoting things from their procedures, a lot of dates that seemed almost circular as they were being presented. She agrees staff needs the leeway to make these decisions, but this boils down to language in the Board procedures. It says that regular hearings will be held as needed at a regular time and place to be set by the members of the Board, that doesn't address what's on the agenda for that meeting and it's been suggested by some that the Board should have more control over the actual agenda. Dulek explained the regular meeting is this Board has decided they will meet monthly on Wednesdays. The schedule is the requirement in the ordinance that states there has to be a schedule followed for special exceptions. The reason the Board does not have much say in setting of the agenda is for this Board the agenda is based on the special exceptions or appeals that have been submitted to the City. Russett noted the process for appeals is different than special exceptions, first would be for the appellant to speak then in addition to just hearing from the appellant the Board should also hear from the property owner and any other people involved in an appeal before making a decision on whether to defer a decision to another meeting. Carlson thanked staff for the time they spent on this and taking the time to make everyone feel comfortable, she wants to make sure that they treat both sides equally and fairly. This Board is more a court than any other City bodies that they meet with so she wants to make sure that they feel that both sides have been treated fairly and again thanks staff for all the time that they put into this CONSIDER FEBRUARY 20, 2025 MINUTES: Carlson moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2025. Russo seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Baker asked the staff to respond to a question about pre-assessing improvements to be made on properties of Public Works and making the applicant pay up front. Russett is going to prepare some information about that and put that on the agenda as a discussion item for the next meeting. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 19 of 20 Carlson moves to have that discussion on the agenda the next meeting, Swygard seconds the motion, a vote was taken and it passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Russo moved to adjourn this meeting, Swygard seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment March 12, 2025 Page 20 of 20 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 NAME TERM EXP. 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/10 11/13 1/8 2/20 3/12 BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X X X X X X X X X X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X X X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X TALLMAN, JULIE 12/31/2029 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member