HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-13 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, October 13, 2021 – 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. EXC21-0015: An application submitted by SouthGate Companies requesting a
special exception to allow an indoor self-service storage use in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) Zone at 947 Highway 6 East.
4. Consideration of Amendments to the Board of Adjustment Bylaws
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 8, 2021
6. Board of Adjustment Announcements
7. Adjournment
If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact
Kirk Lehmann, Urban Planning at 319-356-5230 or at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org. Early requests
are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: November 10 / December 8 / January 12
Informal: Scheduled as needed
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21-0015
ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC21-0015
Parcel Number: 1022108010
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: October 13, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: SouthGate Companies
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
Contact Person: Caleb Wilson
SouthGate Companies
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
cwilson@southgateco.com
Property Owner(s): Pepperwood Properties LLC
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
Requested Action: Special exception to establish a self-service storage
use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
Purpose: To rehabilitate the property into an indoor self-service
storage facility with a wrap of commercial storefronts
Location: 947 Highway 6 East
Location Map:
Size: 2.22 Acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
East: Commercial & Institutional; Community
Commercial (CC-2)
South: Residential; Low Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-12)
West: Institutional; Community Commercial (CC-2)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4B-4C-10: Self-Service Storage in CC-2 Zones (to
be codified)
File Date: September 9, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, SouthGate Companies, owns the subject property at 947 Highway 6 East in the
Pepperwood Plaza commercial area. The building is occupied by the post office and the former
Slumberland furniture store, which is nearly 39,000 square feet. The property is zoned Community
Commercial (CC-2). The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the former Slumberland into a two-
story indoor self-service storage use with a wrap of approximately 2,700 square feet of small retail
storefronts along the north building façade with additional commercial space potential above. The
post office would be unaffected by the proposed project. Application materials, including the
proposed site plan and concept elevations, are included in Attachment 4.
The special exception application (EXC21-0015) would allow the establishment of a self-service
storage use. City Council made this an allowable use in CC-2 zones by special exception on
September 21, 2021 when they approved Ordinance No. 21-4864 (zoning code amendment
REZ21-0007). SouthGate Companies was the applicant for that zoning code amendment as well.
The special exception approval criteria incorporated in that amendment help ensure that any such
use continues to meet the intent of the zone by requiring that it be an indoor facility, that it be able
to accommodate other allowable commercial uses along the front façade, and by applying
enhanced design standards.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 4, 2021. 12 neighbors attended.
Attachment 3 includes a summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant.
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 Ordinance No. 21-4864 (to be codified at Section 14-4B-4C-10), pertaining to
self-storage uses in CC-2 zones, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, the following criteria below
must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion
may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below.
3
Specific Standards: 14-4B-4C-10: Self-Service Storage in CC-2 Zones:
a. All self-service storage units or areas shall be completely within conditioned space,
as defined in the Building Code. No outdoor storage is allowed.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows that all self-service storage areas are within the existing building
(conditioned space is an area, room, or space that is enclosed within the building
thermal envelope and that is directly or indirectly heated or cooled).
• Outdoor storage is not proposed as part of the project.
b. Self-service storage units shall not be individually accessible from the outside, and
no more than 2 garage or overhead doors shall provide access into the building.
Said doors shall only be provided at the rear of the building.
FINDINGS:
• Self-service storage units are not individually accessible from the outside.
• Two overhead doors are proposed in the rear to provide access into the storage areas.
c. A substantial portion of the front building façade must accommodate other
allowable commercial uses. Self-service storage uses are not allowed within the
first thirty feet (30') of the front building depth as measured from the overhang of
the roof, except for the primary entrance to the self-service storage areas. This
primary entrance shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the width of the self-
service storage use’s building facade and may consist of a hallway, lobby, and/or
retail storefront. Individual self-service storage units shall not be allowed within this
primary entrance area.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed use fronts onto the Pepperwood Plaza parking area to the north.
• The site plan shows that all self-service storage areas and units are at least 33’ from
the front of the building overhang, and that the primary entrance area is approximately
5% of the width of the building containing the proposed use.
• Approximately 51% of the façade of the building containing the proposed use is to be
an outdoor patio area and another 44% is to be used for commercial space. Second
story space above the proposed commercial uses may be occupied by additional
commercial uses.
d. Buildings containing self-service storage uses shall be considered a large retail use
as it relates to the site development standards set forth in Section 14-2C-6K.
FINDINGS:
• Buildings containing self-service storage uses shall be considered a large retail use as
it relates to site development standards set forth in Section 14-2C-6K.
• Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan review.
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.
4
FINDINGS:
• The proposed project would occupy an existing building and includes few changes to
the site, which limits negative impacts to health and safety.
• The conversion of large retail spaces to other uses may decrease the availability of
certain goods and services near residential areas. However, trends such as the
closure of large national brick-and-mortar retailers and expansion of e-commerce has
negatively impacted the demand for large retail spaces, and spaces that remain vacant
for long periods of time can lead to deferred maintenance and ultimately blight.
• The proposed small-scale commercial storefronts along the front facade can provide
space for entrepreneurs to scale their businesses and can help provide goods and
services near residential areas, albeit at a lesser scale than large commercial tenants.
• Improvements to the north and south building facades will provide a positive impact
on the visual appeal of area, and the proposed outdoor patio area will help encourage
an active, pedestrian-friendly frontage.
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 project would occupy an existing building and includes few changes to
the site, which limits impacts to surrounding properties.
• Improvements to the north and south building facades will provide a positive impact
on the visual appeal of area.
• Trends such as the closure of large national brick-and-mortar retailers and expansion
of e-commerce has negatively impacted the demand for large retail spaces. Finding
alternative uses for such spaces is beneficial for nearby properties, especially if paired
with opportunities to support additional small businesses.
• The proposed use and commercial space along the front facade can help promote
economic activity and drive traffic to the site, though at a lesser scale than may be the
case for large retail tenants.
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,
commercial, and institutional uses.
• The proposed uses will not negatively impact the redevelopment of surrounding
properties for uses permitted in the zone because the project will occupy an existing
building with limited changes to the structure and surrounding site.
• Improvements to the façade will make the building more visually appealing from both
the north and south.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
5
• The subject property is already developed, and all utilities, access roads, drainage and
necessary facilities are established for this area.
• Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and
building permit review.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• Access to the property is available from Cross Park Avenue, or through the
Pepperwood Plaza parking area, which includes Pepperwood Lane and other drives.
No changes are being proposed to existing access, drives, or parking areas.
• The loading area south of the building would be accessed from Cross Park Avenue.
While the proposed project includes filling in the current ramp area and covering it with
an addition, the method and route for vehicular access will remain unchanged.
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 building meets all dimensional standards.
• The proposed use would contain an estimated 570 storage units and between 2,695
and 5,390 square feet of shopping center uses which would require between 18 and
29 parking spaces. Parking in the Pepperwood Plaza shopping area is shared and
contains adequate parking for the proposed uses. Bicycle parking will also be required,
to be confirmed during site plan review.
• The site development standards require easily identified pedestrian routes between
principal buildings on the site, to abutting rights-of-way connected to adjacent public
sidewalks, and through parking areas. While the north side of the building includes
dedicated pedestrian routes along the building frontage and internal access drives, the
proposed entrance to the south does not include a safe pedestrian route to the
sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue. The property is a nonconforming development, so
staff recommends a condition that there be a pedestrian route from the south entrance
to the sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue that is demarcated by colored concrete,
pavement markings, or other methods where it crosses the internal drive to provide for
safe pedestrian travel.
• The property is across Cross Park Avenue from a residential zone, so the parking and
loading areas south of the building must be screened to the S3 standard. The property
does not currently meet that standard but is a nonconforming development. Staff
recommends a condition that S3 screening be provided along the Cross Park Avenue
right-of-way, to be approved by the City Forester prior to issuance of a building permit
and to be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• All site development standards for CC-2 zones shall be met prior to site plan approval
or shall require minor modifications as allowed by the zoning code, including
compliance with the large retail use standards at 14-2C-6K. Because this is a
nonconforming development, staff recommends this be a condition of approval.
• Staff shall ensure compliance with all applicable standards during site plan and
building permit review.
6
7.The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
•The City’s future land use maps designates this area for General Commercial
(Comprehensive Plan) and Commercial (South District Plan).
•The Comprehensive Plan includes a goal to increase the property tax base by
attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City’s
economy.
•The South District Plan notes that changes in retail due to the rise of online shopping
have impacted large shopping centers like Pepperwood Plaza, but that façade and
landscaping improvements can entice shoppers to linger and can help foster a sense
of place which could help to improve prospects for small or local businesses.
•Façade improvements and the small commercial storefronts can act as starting space
for small businesses, which helps encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally
owned businesses and supports entrepreneurial activity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0015, to allow a self-service storage use in a Community
Commercial (CC-2) for the property at 947 Highway 6 East, subject to the following conditions:
1.Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City
Code, along the subject property’s Cross Park Avenue frontage prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. If said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting
season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The landscaping
plan must be approved by the City Forester prior to issuance of the building permit.
2.Establishment of a pedestrian route from the sidewalk on Cross Park Avenue to the
entrance on the south building face that is demarcated where it crosses parking areas by
colored paving, pavement markings, or other similar methods, to be approved prior to
issuance of the building permit.
3.All site development standards for CC-2 zones, including compliance with standards
relating to large retail uses at 14-2C-6K, shall be met prior to site plan approval, or shall
receive minor modifications as allowed by the zoning code
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Correspondence & Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
4.Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21-0015
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Prepared by Staff
HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST
TAYLOR DRTRACY LN
KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE
HIGHWAY6E
PEPPERWOOD LN
CROSS PARK AVE
EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ
0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E.
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21-0015
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Prepared by Staff
HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST
TAYLOR DRTRACY LN
KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE
HIGHWAY6E
PEPPERWOOD LN
CROSS PARK AVE
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
CI1
CI1
CO1
RM12
RM12
RM12
RM44
RM44
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS5 RS5 RS5
EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ
0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E.
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21-0015 ATTACHMENT 3
Correspondence &
Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
Submitted by the Identified Party
Attendees were disappointed that previous discussions suggested there would be more
storefronts incorporated. The more retail that can be included, the better. Attendees
were not thrilled about a self-service storage use, but they were OK if it supported retail
uses in the area.
Parcel Number Mailing Name Mailing Address1 Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code City (mail)Zip Code Property Address
1022101013 SHELTER HOUSE COMMUNITY SHELTE 429 SOUTHGATE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 820 CROSS PARK AVE
1022101009 AGING SERVICES INC 740 N 15TH AVE STE - A HIAWATHA, IA 52233 IOWA CITY 52240 817 PEPPERWOOD LN
1022101016 GOOD NEWS BIBLE CHURCH 845 PEPPERWOOD LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 845 PEPPERWOOD LN
1022108010 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 925 HIGHWAY 6 E
1022108008 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
1023243002 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR 15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 IOWA CITY 52240 BROADWAY ST
1023254001 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E WASHIHGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 2105 BROADWAY ST
1022106001 IOWA CITY HOUSING ASSOC LP PO BOX 1226 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1226 IOWA CITY 52240 861 CROSS PARK AVE #1053
1022108009 PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
1023243001 PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR 15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 IOWA CITY 52240 1027 HIGHWAY 6 E
1022107001 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A
1022107002 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B
1022107003 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C
1022107004 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D
1022107005 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A
1022107006 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B
1022107007 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C
1022107008 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D
1022107009 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A
1022107010 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B
1022107011 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C
1022107012 MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220 IOWA CITY 52240 801 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D
1022107013 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A
1022107014 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B
1022107015 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C
1022107016 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D
1022107017 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A
1022107018 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B
1022107019 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C
1022107020 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D
1022107021 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A
1022107022 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B
1022107023 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C
1022107024 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 815 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D
1022107025 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A
1022107026 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B
1022107027 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C
1022107028 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D
1022107029 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A
1022107030 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B
1022107031 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C
1022107032 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D
1022107033 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A
1022107034 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B
1022107035 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C
1022107036 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 831 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D
1022107037 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1A
1022107038 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1B
1022107039 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1C
1022107040 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 1D
1022107041 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2A
1022107042 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2B
1022107043 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2C
1022107044 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 2D
1022107045 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3A
1022107046 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3B
1022107047 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3C
1022107048 CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY 52240 845 CROSS PARK AVE APT 3D
1022110001 IOWA MENNONITE CROWDED CLOSET 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101
1022108012 PEPPERWOOD PLAZA ASSOCIATION 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
1022110002 GRD PEPPERWOOD LLC 1805 STATE ST STE 101 BETTENDORF, IA 52722 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 102
1022110003 MGNS LLC PO BOX 5591 CORALVILLE, IA 52241 IOWA CITY 52240 851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 103
1022108011 AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES 16 TH FLOOR - 16A21 754 PEACHTREE ST NE ATLANTA, GA 30308
September 20, 2021
RE: Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E.
Dear Property Owner:
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an application submitted by SouthGate
Companies requesting a special exception to allow an indoor self-service storage use for
the property located at 947 Highway 6 East (see attached map).
As a neighboring property owner, you are being notified of this application. If you know of
any interested party who has not received a copy of this letter, we would appreciate it if
you would inform them of the pending application.
The Board of Adjustment will review this application at a public meeting tentatively
scheduled for October 13, 2021 at 5:15 pm in Emma Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East
Washington Street, Iowa City. Because the meeting is subject to change, you may wish
to call 319-356-5230 or check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/BOA, the
week of the meeting to confirm the meeting agenda.
You are welcome to attend this public meeting to present your views concerning this
application. You may also submit written information to me for consideration in advance
of the meeting, and I will include your comments in the information to be considered by
the Board.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5247 if
you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more
information on the Board of Adjustment review process.
Sincerely,
Kirk Lehmann
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
What is the Board of Adjustment?
The Board of Adjustment is panel made
up of Iowa City citizens appointed by
the City Council. The board reviews and
grants special exceptions and variances
and also considers appeals when there
is a disagreement about an
administrative zoning decision made by
the City. Members of the board act like
judges, making decisions about
individual properties and uses that may
have difficulty meeting a specific
zoning regulation or to resolve disputes
about administrative zoning decisions.
The actions and decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are binding upon all
parties unless overturned upon appeal
to District Court.
What is a special exception?
There are two types of special
exceptions.
1. Within the zoning code a number
of land uses are set apart as special
exceptions that may be permitted
in certain zones. Rather than
permitting these uses outright,
each is reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to ensure that they do not
negatively affect surrounding
properties. For example, daycare
centers are permitted in residential
zones by special exception. The
same is true of churches and private
schools. All may be appropriate
uses in residential zones, if certain
criteria such as parking, screening,
and other requirements are met.
2. Adjustments to specific zoning
requirements in cases where there
are unique circumstances. Again,
the opportunity to adjust these
requirements and the criteria for
allowing such adjustments are
described in the Zoning Code. For
example, a homeowner may apply
for a reduction in a building setback
in order to accommodate an
addition or other improvement to
their property.
The Zoning Code lists explicitly each
use and standard for which a special
exception may be considered. In other
words, you can’t request a special
exception for everything—only those
things called out as special exceptions
in the Code. The Code also provides
criteria specific to each request.
Applicants must provide evidence that
they satisfy each of these criteria, and
the Board must consider these criteria
when making a determination as to
whether to grant a special exception.
What is a variance?
A variance grants a legal right to an
owner to develop property in a manner
that deviates from a specific provision
of the Zoning Code and for which a
special exception is not expressly
allowed. In seeking relief from the
restrictions in the Zoning Code, the
property owner applying for the
variance must show that the strict
application of the Zoning Code would
cause and unnecessary hardship such
that the property in question is
unusable or that a literal interpretation
of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the zoning
district. In addition the circumstances
that create this hardship must be
unique to the property in question and
must not be of the property owner’s
own making.
What is an appeal?
The Board considers and rules on
appeals from any citizen who believes
there is an error in any decision,
determination, or interpretation made
by the City or its designee in the
administration of the Zoning Code. As
with their other decisions, the Board’s
ruling is binding on all parties unless
overturned on appeal to the District
Court.
How does the review process
work?
An application requesting a special
exception, variance, or an appeal is a
request. The Board makes a decision on
whether to grant a specific request only
after City staff have provided a review
of an application and the public has had
an opportunity to make its concerns
known. The Board not only has the right
to approve or deny requests, but may
also choose to approve request subject
to certain conditions.
In making decisions, the Board may only
consider comments and evidence
relevant to the specific standards
provided in the code. City Development
Staff provide reports to the Board for
each application on the agenda. The
Staff Report provides background
information on the application, informs
the Board of all the criteria in the Code
that a particular application must
satisfy, and interprets whether and
how an application has satisfied these
criteria.
How can I participate in the
process?
Because most applications will be
reviewed and decided upon at a single
public hearing, it is important for
interested parties to respond in a
timely and informed manner. Those
who wish to speak for or against an
application are given an opportunity to
be heard by the Board at the hearing,
but may also submit written comments
prior to the meeting.
Written comments must be delivered to
the Department of Neighborhood &
Development Services at City Hall no
later than 5 days before the hearing in
order to be included with the Staff
Report. All correspondence submitted
after that time will be delivered to the
Board at the time of the hearing.
The Board considers the application,
the recommendation of staff (in the
staff report) and any additional
information, correspondence, or
testimony provided at the hearing.
Board of Adjustment hearings are
usually held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J.
Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find
more information at the following
website: www.icgov.org/boa.
The Staff Report can be very useful to
anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA
process or with the Zoning Code and
will provide an understanding of the
criteria that the Board must consider in
rendering its decision. Staff Reports
may be obtained from the Department
of Neighborhood & Development
Services. E-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org to request a copy of a report.
If you have questions about an
application or if you simply want more
information about issues related to the
Board of Adjustment, please feel free
to contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5230 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
To submit comments to the Board of
Adjustment write to the Board of
Adjustment c/o the Department of
Neighborhood & Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions
HOLLYWOODBLVDBROADWAYST
TAYLOR DRTRACY LN
KEOKUK STSOUTHGATE AVE
HIGHWAY6E
PEPPERWOOD LN
CROSS PARK AVE
EXC21-0015947 Highway 6 East.µ
0 0.045 0.090.0225 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by SouthGate Companiesfor a special exception allowing an indoor self-servicestorage use for approximately 34,000 sq. ft. of property located at 947 Highway 6 E.
Mailing Name Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code
SHELTER HOUSE COMMUNITY SHELTE429 SOUTHGATE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240
AGING SERVICES INC 740 N 15TH AVE STE - A HIAWATHA, IA 52233
GOOD NEWS BIBLE CHURCH 845 PEPPERWOOD LN IOWA CITY, IA 52240
IOWA CITY HOUSING ASSOC LP PO BOX 1226 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1226
PEPPERWOOD PROPERTIES LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
PARKVIEW EVANGELICAL FREE CHUR15 FOSTER RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245
MULLEN FARMS C/O DARYL MICKELS 20128 FILMORE AVE PERRY, IA 50220
CROSS PARK APARTMENTS LLC 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
IOWA MENNONITE CROWDED CLOSET851 HIGHWAY 6 E UNIT 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PEPPERWOOD PLAZA ASSOCIATION 755 MORMON TREK BLVD IOWA CITY, IA 52246
GRD PEPPERWOOD LLC 1805 STATE ST STE 101 BETTENDORF, IA 52722
MGNS LLC PO BOX 5591 CORALVILLE, IA 52241
AT & T MOBILITY SERVICES 754 PEACHTREE ST NE 16 TH FLOOR - 16A21ATLANTA, GA 30308
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21-0015
ATTACHMENT 4
Special Exception Application
Submitted by the Applicant
Project Description:
SouthGate Companies is requesting a Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E (former
Slumberland space) to allow the use of indoor self-service storage with a wrap of small retail
storefronts, within the CC-2 zoning.
Special Exception Application: 9/9/2021: SouthGate Companies – 947 Hwy 6 E, Iowa City, IA
Summary: SouthGate Companies is requesting a Special Exception for 947 Highway 6 E (former
Slumberland space) to allow the use of indoor self-service storage with a wrap of small retail storefronts,
within the CC-2 zoning.
TENTATIVE Specific Criteria (14-4B-4C-10): Self Storage in CC-2 Zones
a. All self-service storage units or areas shall be completely within conditioned space, as defined in
the Building Code. No outdoor storage is allowed. SouthGate’s submitted draft site plan shows
only indoor storage and retail use.
b. Self-service storage units shall not be individually accessible from the outside, and no more than
2 garage or overhead doors shall provide access into the building. Said doors shall only be
provided at the rear of the building. There will be 2 rear garage doors on the building and the
storage units will be accessed from inside the building.
c. A substantial portion of the front building façade must accommodate other allowable
commercial uses. Self-service storage uses are not allowed within the first thirty feet (30') of the
front building depth as measured from the overhang of the roof, except for the primary entrance
to the self-service storage areas. This primary entrance shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of
the width of the self-service storage use’s building facade and may consist of a hallway, lobby,
and/or retail storefront. Individual self-service storage units shall not be allowed within this
primary entrance area. The submitted Site Plan shows retail use in the first 30’ of the building,
with the except of a front entrance for the Self Storage business that meets the above criteria.
d. Buildings containing self-service storage uses shall be considered a large retail use as it relates to
the site development standards set forth in Section 14-2C-6K. We have submitted a concept to
the City of what the exterior will look like to meet these standards. We are currently working
with an architect to put together formal construction plans. We expect them to be very similar to
the concepts submitted.
General Criteria (14-4B-3A):
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. This building will be a positive use and benefit to the community,
and will be well maintained.
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. This new business will support additional traffic flow to this shopping center, and
will aid in maintaining values of neighboring property owners, if not improving.
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 front retail use is directly in line with the neighboring
businesses, and the rear loading area will be similar in use to how Slumberland uses it currently,
as a loading and drop off area.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. This is accurate.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize
traffic congestion on public streets. This shopping center has more than adequate infrastructure
to support traffic flow as it is today.
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. This is true.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended.
This is true.
Lot 9, Pepperwood Plaza Subdivision, a resubdivision of a portion of block 1, Braverman Center, Iowa
City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof recorded in Book 52, Page 60, Plat Records of Johnson
County, Iowa.
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
Consideration of Amendments
Prepared by Staff
DATE: 10/1/2021
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASS’T. CITY ATTORNEY
KIRK LEHMANN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROCEDURAL RULES
Introduction.
The October 13, 2021 agenda will include two proposed changes to the Board of Adjustment
Procedural Rules (i.e., bylaws), a copy of which is attached.
Notice to Nearby Properties - Article V / Section 1.
The Board has discussed providing notice to additional persons living near the site.
By way of background, the City first established the voluntary good neighbor program in 1998 to
encourage dialogue between developers and adjacent properties owners. The program was most
recently reviewed in 2013, but it has remained relatively stable over time and requires notice to
neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. In March 2019, the Mayor
requested further review of the policy after a consultation between the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council. Following numerous discussions, Council directed staff to proceed with
the following changes to the good neighbor program at their May 4, 2021 work session:
1. Require good neighbor meetings for annexations, project-specific comprehensive plan map
amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments to the zoning
map.
2. Increase the notification radius to 500-feet.
3. Expand those notified to individual residences when the mailing addresses are easily
attainable from the Assessor’s website.
4. Explore ways to increase electronic notification options.
While these recommendations apply primarily to applications reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) staff recommends that all Urban
Planning applications include consistent requirements.
For the Board of Adjustment, standards related to the good neighbor program are currently guided by
Article V, which includes procedures on notice letters for nearby property owners, a newspaper notice
publication, and posting of a notice sign on the property. Based on Council’s directives, NDS staff
recommends increasing the notice letter radius from 300 to 500 feet and adding a requirement that
such letters be sent to all non-duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s
website). However, other recommended changes do not similarly apply to cases heard by the Board of
Adjustment, or are better approached with a more comprehensive policy.
The proposed amendment to the Procedural Rules is:
Section 1. Notice Letters. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the
Secretary of the Board shall send notice by mail to all property owners of record, and to all non-
duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within 5300
feet of the subject property. Such notice shall include a description of the action requested along
with the time and location of the meeting. The applicant shall be formally notified of the time and
place of the hearing, in writing, by the Secretary of the Board.
Motion/Second by Chair - Article VI/Section 10.
Chairperson Pretorius has requested the Board consider an amendment to remove the provision
prohibiting the Chair from making or seconding a motion. I reviewed the bylaws for all the other City
boards and commissions, and aside from the Board of Adjustment, only the Planning and Zoning
Commission has such a provision. Also, the Mayor can make a motion and second a motion at a City
Council meeting, and there is no such prohibition in state law or Robert’s Rules. Robert’s Rules does
suggest that with large groups the Chair not make a motion or a second to ensure the appearance of
impartiality.
The proposed amendment to the Procedural Rules is:
Section 10. Board Motions. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the Board
other than the Chair. Motions are always made in the affirmative, approving the requested
action.
Process.
Article IX of the Procedural Rules require 3 members to approve an amendment to the bylaws. If
approved, the proposed amendment will be forwarded to City Council for approval. (Council approves
the bylaws for every City board and commission.) The amendment would be effective upon Council
approval.
The Board has three options, which in no particular order are:
1. Approve both proposed changes.
2. Approve only one of the proposed changes.
3. Not approve either of the proposed change.
Due to both open meeting requirements and the Procedural Rules (Article IX), the Board cannot at the
October 13 meeting approve a change that substantially modifies these two proposed changes and
cannot approve a change to any other provision of the Procedural Rules. Those changes could occur
at the November meeting with proper notice.
We look forward to talking with you about these proposed changes at the October 13 meeting.
Attachments.
1. Proposed changes to the Bylaws of the Board of Adjustment
PROCEDURAL RULES
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
October 2021
ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY:
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment shall have that authority which is conferred by Chapter 414 of the
Code of Iowa; City Code Title 14, Chapter 7, entitled “Administration,” Article A, entitled “Board of
Adjustment,” and through the adoption of these procedural rules stated herein.
ARTICLE II. MEMBERSHIP:
Section 1. Qualifications. The Board of Adjustment shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the
City Council. All members of the Board shall be residents of Iowa City, Iowa. A majority of the members
of the Board shall be persons representing the public at large and shall not be involved in the business
of purchasing or selling real estate.
Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for
expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Board business. Such expenses must be
submitted to the City Manager.
Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their appointment,
each new member shall be shall be given an orientation briefing by City staff and be provided with the
Board’s procedural rules and other information that may be useful to Board members in carrying out
their duties. The City Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Plan are available on line.
Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Board member from regular
Board meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Board to discharge said
member and appoint a new Board member. Members shall be removable for cause by the City Council
upon written charges after a public hearing.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Board because of death, resignation, long-term illness,
disqualification, or removal shall be filled for the unexpired term by the City Council after at least thirty
(30) calendar days of public notice of the vacancy as required by law.
Section 6. Terms. Members shall be appointed for terms of five years. No members shall be appointed
to succeed themselves. However, a member appointed to fill an unexpired term with one year or less
remaining may also be appointed concurrently for one full five (5) year term.
Section 7. Resignations. Resignation should be submitted in writing to the Board Secretary, who will
transmit the resignation to the City Council with copies to the City Manager, the Director of
Neighborhood and Development Services, and the Board Chairperson, preferably at least sixty (60)
days prior to the date of intended departure.
Section 8. Temporary Alternate. An alternate member, if available, shall be appointed as provided
herein, to replace a member who is unable to participate in an appeal of an administrative decision due
to a conflict of interest. Any person who has served as a member of the Board within the 5 years
preceding the filing of the appeal, and who represents the public at large and is not involved in the
business of purchasing or selling real estate, shall be qualified to serve as an alternate. When the
member has recused himself/herself due to a conflict and the date of hearing before the Board has been
set, the Secretary of the Board shall notify all such persons and the first to agree to serve as the a lternate is
hereby appointed to do so.
ARTICLE III. OFFICERS:
Section 1. Number. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson, each of
whom shall be elected by a majority vote of the members of the Board. The Board Secretary shall be a
staff person, who is appointed by the Director of Planning and Community Development.
Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected
annually at the first regular meeting of the Board each year.
Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson because of death,
resignation, removal, disqualification, or other cause shall be filled by election from the members of the
Board for the unexpired portion of the term.
Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, call special
meetings, and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a Chairperson, and such other
duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Such Chairperson may administer
oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses.
Section 5. Vice-Chairperson. When the Chairperson is absent or abstaining, the Vice-Chairperson
shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the
restrictions upon the Chairperson.
Section 6. Acting Chairperson. In the absence and/or due to the abstention of both the Chairperson
and Vice-Chairperson, the remaining three-member Board may elect a member to serve as Acting
Chairperson. The Acting Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting
shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson.
Section 7. Secretary. The appointed staff person, who serves as the Board’s Secretary, shall be
responsible for maintaining the office of the Board, receiving and filing Board decisions and orders,
posting and publishing notices as required by law, and for maintaining minutes and other records of the
Board’s proceedings.
ARTICLE IV. APPLICATIONS:
Section 1. Application Forms. Any application for a request or appeal to the Board of Adjustment
shall be filed with the City Clerk on forms provided by the Secretary of the Board. The Secretary’s office
is located in the Department of Neighborhood and Development Services. Forms are available in the
office of the City Clerk and on the City’s website. In the appropriate cases, the Building Inspector shall
transmit to the Secretary all documents constituting a record, upon which the Board shall act.
Section 2. Application Submittal. Appeals to the Board shall be filed with the City Clerk within a
reasonable time period, not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days after the action appealed from, and
shall specify the grounds for such appeal. An appeal from a decision by the Building Inspector to issue
a building permit shall not be deemed to have been filed within a reasonable time if such appeal is filed
more than ten (10) business days after construction work pursuant to such permit is observable from
adjacent properties of the public right-of-way or ten (10) business days after an alleged violation of the
zoning code is similarly observable. Applicants may appeal an approval or a denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission within a conservation district by filing a
letter with the City Clerk within ten (10) business days after a Resolution of Denial is filed by the
Commission.
Section 3. Application Filing Fee. The applicant shall complete the required forms, providing all
information requested on the form, and any additional information as requested by the Secretary of the
Board. A filing fee shall be paid upon presentation of the application. Application fees are established
by resolution of the City Council.
Section 4. Party of Interest. Requests for a variance or special exception must be filed on behalf of the
real party in interest, such as the owner or contract purchaser.
Section 5. Case Number. An application filed according to the above procedure shall be given a case
number within five (5) business days of the filing date. Case numbers will be assigned according to the
order in which applications are received.
ARTICLE V. NOTICE:
Section 1. Notice Letters. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the
Secretary of the Board shall send notice by mail to all property owners of record, and to all non-
duplicative individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within 3500 feet of
the subject property. Such notice shall include a description of the action requested along with the time
and location of the meeting. The applicant shall be formally notified of the time and place of the hearing,
in writing, by the Secretary of the Board.
Section 2. Newspaper Notice. Notice of the time and place of public hearings shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation not more than twenty (20) calendar day nor less than seven (7)
business days prior to the hearing. It shall contain the street address or location of the property and a
brief description of the nature of the application or appeal.
Section 3. Notice Sign. No less than seven (7) business days prior to the public hearing, the Applicant
shall post a sign on or near the property upon which the application is being made, and shall remove
the sign immediately following the public hearing on the application. The sign will be provided to the
applicant(s) by the Board Secretary.
ARTICLE VI. HEARING:
Section 1. Regular Hearings. Hearings will be held as needed at a regular time and place to be set by
the members of the Board.
Section 2. Special Hearings. Special hearings or meetings of the Board may be called by the
Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson at the request of three (3) or
more members of the Board.
Section 3. Place of Hearings. All hearings and meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and
shall be in a place accessible to people with disabilities.
Section 4. Quorum. Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum.
Section 5. Applicant Representation. The applicant may, at the time of the public hearing, appear on
their own behalf and be represented by agent and/or counsel. The applicant or their representative may
present oral argument and testimony; witnesses, including experts; and may submit written evidence
and exhibits in the form of statements, photos, charts, or other relevant evidence. In the absence of the
applicant or their representative(s), the Board may proceed to act on the matter based on the
information provided.
Section 6. Briefs. The Board may request written briefs for legal argument. Applicants may submit
written briefs if they so choose.
Section 7. Conduct of Hearing. Order and decorum shall be maintained at the hearing by the
Chairperson of the Board of Adjustment, so as to allow an orderly presentation of evidence wherever
possible. The Chair may swear witnesses and direct order of testimony. The Chair shall avoid
testimony that is overly redundant. The Chair may provide for recesses during the deliberation, as
appropriate.
Any Board member who has a legal conflict of interest shall recuse him/ herself from the decision-
making process. A member who has a legal conflict of interest or otherwise elects to recuse him/herself
due to a perceived conflict of interest shall state the reason for recusal prior to discussion of the matter
under consideration and may choose to leave the meeting room for the duration of the proceedings for
that application.
Section 8. Hearing Order. The order of hearing shall be as follows:
1. Staff presentation of the facts of the case and recommendation to the board.
2. Statement by proponents of the application.
3. Statement by opponents of the application.
4. Rebuttal by proponents and then by opponents.
5. General discussion by the Board.
Section 9. Board Deliberation. After all parties have been heard, the public hearing will be declared
closed so that the Board may deliberate the case. The Board must state findings of fact and
conclusions of law. These facts and legal conclusions must be set forth in writing as requir ed by Iowa
law. The Board may request additional comments from the participants. An application may be deferred
or withdrawn at the request of the applicant at any time before a decision is made by the Board.
Section 10. Board Motions. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the Board other
than the Chair. Motions are always made in the affirmative, approving the requested action.
Section 11. Board Voting. After a motion and discussion, the Board shall be polled for votes. A board
member may abstain from voting, which is a non-vote. The concurring vote of three (3) members of the
Board shall be required to uphold an appeal, to decide in favor of a special exception, or to grant a
variance.
Voting on Board decisions will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays. Proxy votes are
not allowed.
Section 12. Legal Advisor. The City Attorney or a designated representative shall act as legal counsel
to the Board.
Section 13. Conduct of Meetings. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules of Order Newly
Revised shall be used to conduct Board hearings and meetings.
ARTICLE VII. RECORDS:
Section 1. Record of Hearings. Audio recordings shall be made for all hearings and such recordings
shall be kept for a period of no less than six (6) weeks. Minutes shall be produced from such
recordings, and forwarded to the City Council after approval by the Board or the Secretary of the Board.
All minutes shall be maintained by the Secretary of the Board, and shall also be on file at the City
Clerk’s office. The applicant may request a court reporter at the applicant’s own expense.
Section 2. Case Files. The Secretary of the Board shall keep a file of all cases, including forms and
additional information. Said file shall be a public record and available for public inspection during
business hours. Copies may be made available upon request, at cost.
Section 3. Transcript. Upon request, a transcript or the audio recording of the Board’s deliberation will
be made, at cost to the requestor. In the case of an appeal to district court there is no charge for the
transcript.
ARTICLE VIII. DECISIONS:
Section 1. Whenever possible, decisions by the Board shall be made at the same hearing wherein the
testimony and presentation of evidence are considered.
Section 2. Formal decisions shall be made in writing, setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of
law as required by Iowa law.
Section 3. Each decision shall be filed with the City Clerk within a reasonable time after the Board
hearing, and shall be stamped by the Clerk to indicate the date and time of filing. The Clerk will forward
the decision to the Johnson County Recorder’s Office, for recording at the city’s expense.
Section 4.
A copy of said decision shall be forwarded by the Secretary of the Board to the applicant, the Building
Inspector, the City Attorney’s Office, and any Attorney of Record within a reasonable time after filing
with the City Clerk.
Section 5.
Reconsideration: Upon written request, the Board may reconsider a decision on a special exception or
variance application. A request for reconsideration must be made within ten (10) business days of the
meeting at which a vote on the application was originally taken and shall articulate and be based on
evidence that was not presented or was unavailable at the time of the original hearing. A motion to
reconsider must be made at the subsequent meeting by a member of the Board who voted on the
prevailing side. If a motion to reconsider is approved, the application will be placed on the agenda of
the next meeting in order to satisfy the requirement for public notice and hearing. No decision may be
reconsidered more than once. Appeals to the Board may not be reconsidered.
ARTICLE IX. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCECURAL RULES.
Section 1. A concurring vote of three (3) of the members of the Board shall be necessary to amend
these procedural rules. Such proposed amendments shall be presented in writing at any regular
meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall go into effect upon
approval by the City Council.
October 13, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA
September 8, 2021
Prepared by Staff
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Joe Meyers, John Brehm, Benjamin Samaniego and
Jorge Medina
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Request to reconsider the decision for EXC21-0009 dated August 11, 2021 (An application
submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking
reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a
building in a CB-10 zone to construct a new mixed-use building at 21 S. Linn Street).
Dulek stated this item on the agenda is a request to reconsider a decision the Board made on a
special exception at the last meeting. This is not about the substance of the application, but
whether the Board wishes to reconsider its decision. To do that, someone who voted in the
majority will need to make the motion, so that would be Board member Carlson, Chrischilles, or
Russo, and anybody can second except the Chair. If no motion is made, or if it dies for lack of a
second, the item will not be discussed, and the Board will move on to the next item on the
agenda. The Board will first hear on behalf of the person requesting the reconsideration, Mike
Pugh, the applicant’s attorney, but first does the Board have any procedural questions.
Chrischilles asked if there will be discussion if no one makes a motion. Dulek replied if no
motion and second, then no Board discussion.
Mike Pugh (Pugh Hagan Prahm Law Firm) is here on behalf of the applicant as their
representative. They submitted the request for reconsideration in writing and that was also
supplemented by correspondence from Andy Savoy, who is the development specialist for CA
Ventures. Pugh stated the procedural rules for the Board permit the applicant to put forth and
speak at the Board in support of their application and then opponents are permitted an
opportunity to voice any concerns or opposition in connection with that application. But then,
importantly for the applicant, the applicant should be given a chance to rebut any information or
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 2 of 24
comments that were supplied by people that oppose that application. Their request centers
around Bob Miklo’s letter that was received by the Board an hour or so before the meeting,
which the applicant never received until the next day. Therefore, in their presentation before the
Board, the applicant didn't get a chance to address Mr. Miklo’s comments or the points that he
made and didn't get a chance to rebut those items. The Board received a copy and proceeded
to discuss the contents of Mr. Miklo’s letter, but the applicant never saw it. They did not see the
letter until the next day. Additionally, part of the issue with Mr. Miklo’s letter is that he's a former
senior planner for the City of Iowa City and when Mr. Lehmann produced the staff report, which
was very detailed in this particular case, and supported approving the application, that report is
done with objectivity and an analysis of the code at the time. The staff reports are very detailed,
going through all of the specific factors and in this particular case, Mr. Lehmann and the staff
recommended approval. The first thing Mr. Milko states in his letter is that he's a former senior
planner and therefore the letter was written in a cloak of objectivity in its analysis of the code.
But make no mistake, that letter was written in a persuasive fashion, and left out certain details
and certain facts were twisted, and the applicant should have had a chance to rebut. The
situation is the application was presented, had a favorable recommendation from the staff, there
was no other opponent that spoke at the meeting, the only bit of resistance or negative
comments came from Mr. Miklo’s letter that the applicant never even saw. Pugh asks the Board
then, but for Mr. Miklo’s letter would the vote have turned out differently, the applicants think the
answer is clearly yes, and they'd like an opportunity to rebut that information that Mr. Miklo
provided and the way he provided it to the Board. Mr. Savoy presented some of that information
in his letter but the analysis between their project and their peer group, which is only a few
projects in town, the data concerning the parking requirements for student housing like the CA
Ventures project is critical. Most importantly is all of the variety of ways in which this project is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Milko conflates the Comprehensive Plan with the
code and Ms. Dulek did an excellent job at the meeting trying to steer the direction to really what
the Comprehensive Plan is, but Mr. Miklo’s letter conflates the two. Pugh stated there's a whole
host information that the applicant can provide in terms of showing how their project is in fact in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and they respectfully request an opportunity to do so.
Russo asked how they were left out of that information. Lehmann replied the letter came in late
so copies were printed off for the Board, but not enough copies were printed for the applicant.
He asked the applicant if they were fine waiting until the next day to get a copy and they were,
but they did not get a chance to see the letter in advance.
Chrischilles noted in their informational packets for this current meeting, Mr. Pugh’s points of
rebuttal are included as well as another set of rebuttals from Mr. Miklo and asked Mr. Pugh if he
would not consider that and the time here requesting the reconsideration as a rebuttal. Mr.
Pugh replied the way the procedural rules work, they cannot discuss the substantive issues this
evening and the only issue before the Board is whether the request for reconsideration should
be granted and to do so they had to put forth some minimal explanation for the request. If the
Board would grant a reconsideration, then at a subsequent Board meeting they would present
the weight of the evidence and information.
Dulek confirmed should there be a vote and a second to reconside r, at the next meeting they
will publish the public hearing, open the public hearing, and hear from anybody on any subject
having to do with that application, it will be a new meeting.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 3 of 24
Russo moved to reconsider the decision for EXC21-0009 dated August 11, 2021 (An application
submitted by Axiom Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a 50 percent parking
reduction for other unique circumstances and to allow parking within the exterior walls of a
building in a CB-10 zone to construct a new mixed-use building at 21 S. Linn Street).
No second, motion dies.
Russo asked in light of the fact that one Board member is absent due to being abroad serving
the military, does the applicant get a chance to make another request. Dulek replied no.
Russo moved deferral of the reconsideration, no one seconded the motion, and motion failed.
There was no second to the motion to reconsider, and it failed for lack of a second.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0013:
An application submitted by lmOn Communications requesting a special exception to allow a
basic utility use in a Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone to build a telecommunications hub at
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann stated tonight's application is from ImOn for a basic utility use in a CC -2 zone at 755
Mormon Trek Boulevard in the Walden Square development. Walden Square contains a mix of
uses, primarily commercial with some residential above, apartments to the north and west and
across Mormon Trek Boulevard are some single-family homes. The single-family homes are
away from where the use is proposed. It is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and
most areas around it are also CC-2 with some low density residential multifamily to the north
and west, and low-density single family across Mormon Trek Boulevard. ImOn is a local
telecommunications provider, they provide cable, internet and some other services within Iowa
City and are seeking to expand their service capabilities. ImOn has applied to establish a
telecommunications hub at 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard, and it would be attached to the north
side of the garages on the west side of the property. A basic utility use is allowed by special
exception when not enclosed within a building that houses another principal use. The hub will
require screening around it to the S3 standard because of the residential properties, but the
building itself is relatively small at 15’ by 16’. Again, it would be screened by landscaping and
there would be a retention wall to the north as well. Lehmann showed on a map where the
property is located, and the site plan shows screening to the north and west and a retaining wall
to the north. ImOn is also proposing a generator with a fence that would be in that area.
Lehmann then showed pictures. The pavement is already expanded to the front of the proposed
use but there is a grade change that necessitates the retaining wall. Lehmann showed the
building concept submitted with the application, the building is roughly the same size of the
garage, just a little taller at 10’. It would extend past the garages an additional 16’ to 15’ in
depth and it would have HVAC units on the back. Lehmann noted it is an unmanned site.
The role of the Board of Adjustment is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 4 of 24
that it meets all applicable approval criteria including both specific standards for the waiver
requested and the general standards for all special exceptions.
The specific standards are located at section 14-4B-4D-1B-2 which says in all commercial
zones basic utilities not enclosed within a building with another primary use are permitted only
by special exception. Proposed uses must be screened from public view and from view of any
adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. In addition, the applicant must provide
evidence the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regards
to safety, size, height, scale, location and design particularly for facilities located close to/or
within view of residential zones.
Lehmann began first with how the proposed uses must be screened from public view and from
the view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. He noted the use is at the
rear of a lot and not in public view, defined as highly visible from a public street, sidewalk,
access easement or other public way or from a public park or o ther public open space.
Regarding proposed screening, the site plan shows S3 screening to the north and the west
where there are the adjacent residential uses, to the south are the existing garages and there's
also the block retaining wall to the north. Screening standards are typically reviewed during site
plan when the applicant will submit a landscaping plan and staff would review the standards, but
based on the concept, staff anticipates that they will meet S3 standards.
Secondly, it's compatible with surrounding structures and uses. In this case, the basic utility use
would be an enclosed structure and would have a locked door that would prevent unauthorized
access, which would help mitigate public health and safety issues. The proposed structure is
one story so it's in scale with the surrounding structures that are one or two stories, though it is
slightly taller than the existing garages. Staff would recommend a condition because it is
attached to those garages that the proposed structure match the design of the existing building,
specifically regarding colors, textures, materials, roof pitch and related features, to help provide
visual continuity between the new building and existing buildings.
Lehmann next discussed the seven general special exceptions standards at 14-4B-3 that
pertain to all special exceptions. The first is that the specific proposed exception will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He stated again
that the use is in an enclosed structure with a locked door which prevents access and mitigates
public health and safety issues. There is a small generator that would support the use directly
west of the site, it’s about 12 feet from the west lot line. Based on the information provided by
the applicant, staff expects it to produce approximately 64 decibels of sound, which is somewhat
similar to air conditioning units about 100 feet away at 60 decibels, TV audio and vacuum
cleaners at about 70 decibels, and approximately the range of a normal conversation. The site
plan includes a six-foot-tall privacy fence enclosing the generator, and the staff recommends a
condition that the fence be solid to help mitigate any potential spillover sound into adjacent
properties. In addition, the use will also provide internet and cable options to Iowa City residents
improving general welfare.
The second criterion is that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood. Lehmann stated the use will allow for another internet
service provider in Iowa City and increased bandwidth capabilities. Also, the proposed structure
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 5 of 24
is small at only 240 square feet and is in the far northwest corner of the property and screened
from adjacent residential uses. Staff did recommend the condition regarding design as well
which helps mitigate impacts on surrounding properties. Lehmann reiterated there is a
generator that will produce sound, but with staff’s condition they don’t believe that is an issue.
The third is that the exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses in the district. The property and surrounding lots
are fully developed, and the structure is set back from adjacent lot lines. Staff believes that
landscaping improvements will mitigate visual impacts and therefore that this criterion is met.
The fourth criterion is that there are adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
facilities. Again, Lehmann noted the area is fully developed with access to utilities and other
necessary facilities. However, staff will also review compliance with all applicable standards
during the site plan and building permit review required as part of the process.
The fifth criterion is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The property generally ha s
adequate circulation and parking and there is an access alley from Westwinds Drive. Because
the site is unmanned, it's not expected to substantially increase traffic and should only need
occasional maintenance. There is a dumpster directly east of the project but there appears to
be adequate space for parking between the enclosure and the structure and adequate space for
garbage trucks to continue to access the structure. There's also a pedestrian route proposed
north of the building to provide access to that generator per the site plan.
Criterion six is except for the specific regulations and standards applicable, the exception has
met all other standards of the zoning code. Lehmann explained in this case there are no
minimum parking requirements for basic utility uses. The property is east of properties that are
zoned low density multifamily residential, so for commercial zones, the rear setback must equal
the setback of the abutting residential zone. In this case, that setback is 20 feet for the RM-12
zone and the site plan shows the property is currently set back 17 feet, so it is slightly short of
the requirement. The applicant can either shift the building three feet to the east or they could
request a minor modification to reduce the setback by three feet. Based on staff’s preliminary
review, it appears that it would meet the requirements for a minor modification, but it would need
to be approved prior to site plan review. As far as other setbacks, the generator meets
accessory use setbacks, which are different than those for main setbacks, so it can be closer to
the property line. Other standards also appear to be met. But staff again would ensure
compliance during site planning and building permit review.
Finally, it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan
shows the future land use designation for this area as general commercial, and the Southwest
District Plan shows it as neighborhood commercial. Generally, the Southwest District Plan
encourages the development of businesses that provide goods, services and amenities to the
neighborhood. Based on these findings staff feel that this criterion is met.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0013, to establish a basic utility use for the property
located at 755 Mormon Trek Blvd, subject to the following conditions:
1. The exterior of the structure for the proposed use shall match the exterior of the
existing building to which it will be attached, including colors, textures, materials, roof
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 6 of 24
pitch, and related features, to be approved during site plan review.
2. The generator used to power the telecommunications hub shall be enclosed by a 6 -foot
tall, solid privacy fence to mitigate noise spillover onto adjacent properties.
Carlson asked if this Board has to say anything about the fact that the setback is only 17 feet
and require the approval be based on either they have to move it or they have to ask for a minor
modification. Lehmann stated the Board does not because as currently proposed, the
application would have to be adjusted in some way, whether it's through a minor mod ification or
through an increased setback during site plan or the site plan couldn't be approved. That being
said, the Board could say if they would prefer one or the other, that they shift the building or get
a minor modification, that would be within the purview of the Board.
Russo asked how close the nearest residence is. Lehmann stated it is set back a way, not sure
exactly the distance but there is green space and parking in between. Russo asks because he
is concerned about the noise spillover from the generator and is there another avenue that this
can be addressed. Lehmann replied there are noise regulations in the City that could come into
play if it was a nuisance and affect the peace of the neighbors. Lehmann stated he believes
that they would have recourse where the generator would have to be moved or additional
screening provided.
Joe Meyers (engineer, ImOn Communications) first addressed the generator, it will only run on
a five minute exercise cycle during the business day so it would come on like once for probably
15 minutes during the day, and the only other time it will come on is if they lose commercial
power. It's a backup generator. As for what's inside the building, there's the power supply in
there, it's neg 48 which is a low voltage power, and they’re going to have their equipment that
they will actually use to provide fiber to the homes. The only voltage that's going to be going up
there is for the 200-amp single phase to the structure itself. Meyers noted he did one similar on
F Street and First Avenue over by HyVee a couple of years back that was similar for that part of
town. He also noted there's no flat part of Mormon Trek Boulevard, so they felt this was the best
spot as the exterior is going to match perfectly to the struc ture. All they’re going to do is extend
it out 16 feet and they wouldn't have problems coming in the other two feet but would really
need a little extra room for rack separation, because there's going to be equipment racks in
there. As far as any kind of harm to the public or anything like that, it doesn't exist there.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion.
Russo moved for approval EXC21-0013 to establish a basic utility use for the property
located at 755 Mormon Trek Blvd, subject to the following conditions:
1. The exterior of the structure for the proposed use shall match the exterior of the
existing building to which it will be attached, including colors, textures, materials,
roof pitch, and related features, to be approved during site plan review.
2. The generator used to power the telecommunications hub shall be enclosed by a 6-
foot tall, solid privacy fence to mitigate noise spillover onto adjacent properties.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 7 of 24
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0013 he concurs with the findings set forth in the
staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he recommends
that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s
Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEMS:
The next items are special exceptions to allow for drive-through facilities. Each will be
discussed and voted on separately, but the public hearings will run concurrently.
EXC21-0003: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow
drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at
Iowa City Hy-Vee #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann stated this is a special exception to allow a drive-through use for their Aisles Online
program. At the 1125 North Dodge location, the grocery store is in the northeast corner of the
site and parking is to the southeast. There are commercial and residential uses to the south and
institutional and commercial uses to the east. To the west, and northwest, there's some single -
family residential uses and to the south there are a couple single family residential uses, but
most of it is commercial. To the east is the former HyVee site. The site is currently zoned
community commercial and there are single family zones to the north and west, more
community commercial to the south, some multifamily zoning to the south where there's a
cemetery, and then a neighborhood commercial zone to the east.
In terms of background, LT Leon Associates applied on behalf of HyVee for the Aisles Online
drive-throughs. The grocery store on the property is about 57,000 square feet and was
constructed in 2014. The lot itself is large at about 6.27 acres, but the drive-through facility
would only be on a small portion of that. The property was first zoned community commercial
with a planned development overlay in 2013. That OPD was required to accommodate sensitive
features that are on the site, specifically steep slopes. However, because of the conditions that
were incorporated as part of conditional zoning agreement, they needed to rezone it even
though drive-through facilities are allowed by special exception. Specifically, it did not meet the
conditions of the original conditional zoning agreement that required it to match the site plan
when adding in drive-through facilities and a new kiosk. The property was rezoned to the same
zone CC-2 with an OPD on August 17, 2021, to revise the conditional zoning agreement but
there are still five conditions. The first is that a buffer area screened to the S3 standard shall be
established along the western property line and a masonry wall shall be provided where the
buffer is less than 35 feet. Second that no signs are allowed in the 35-foot buffer, or to the north
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 8 of 24
or west of the convenience store, which is located on the southwest corner of the site, except for
a monument sign. Additionally, no more than two freestanding signs are allowed along Dodge
Street and other signs are allowed per code. Third, that any structures including canopies shall
be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including
features such as masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors and designs
to be approved by the design review committee prior to issuance of a building permit. The
fourth condition is that existing evergreen screening and mature trees be preserved along the
northwest side of the property where possible. Finally, the development and landscaping shall
be consistent with the plan dated June 8, 2021 and Lehmann noted the site plan that they
submitted for this application is the same that they had submitted for that rezoning.
Chrischilles asked where this was to be built. Lehmann stated it would replace the parking aisle
closest to St. Clement Street. Chrischilles asked if they want to build a canopy over the whole
thing. Lehmann stated no, the canopy would only be over their unloading area. They can have
basically four cars in a row that would be waiting, and then have two loading zones in each lane.
Regarding vehicular access to the site, Lehmann said there are three access points on North
Dodge, but the eastern most is only for loading and is not a public access point. Then there are
also two access points on St. Clement Street and all are connected by internal drives and
east/west parking aisles. As far as pedestrian routes, there are two access points on North
Dodge and two on St. Clement Street, there are also pedestrian pathways along the front of the
building, there's one that goes through the middle of the parking lot and where those pedestrian
paths cross internal drives they are demarcated by colored pavement currently. Regarding the
proposed drive-through, it replaces the existing parking near St. Clement Street. It will be pickup
only, there won't be any order boards or intercom systems. The site plan includes a pedestrian
pathway that would allow employees to bring orders to the kiosk. Again, the drive -through will
be at the north center part of the site, it would be three drive-through lanes, with two parking
stalls plus four stacking stalls behind them. There are also small parking areas in the entry and
exit areas. Lehmann noted it retains two-way movement at the entry and exit areas but the
drive-through lane itself would be one direction, from east to west.
Carlson asked about the sidewalk. Lehmann replied the sidewalk is for the employees to bring
groceries to the kiosk and it was built from the existing sidewalk, which goes into the front of the
store to the east. It crosses the internal drive outside of the drive-through area where it is
marked as a crossing, and then connects into the area of marked pavement. That would be a
clear zone for employees and then the kiosk is slightly to the west of that. The lanes would be
marked by paint in the loading areas where employees could walk to the cars and the canopy
would be over where they load. The kiosk would block the canopy from the residential area to
the north so they wouldn't see the canopy as much. Carlson asked if the canopy has lights in it,
Lehmann believes yes but noted the applicant can also speak to that.
Lehmann showed an image of what it looks like today, right now it's just a parking aisle with a
temporary Aisles Online building that looks like a storage container. He pointed out a lot of the
parking spaces are already reserved for Aisles Online customers. As for current screening,
there is existing screening and the application states that it would replace it all or they could
retain as much as possible as long as they have a landscaping plan that meets the applicable
standards. Looking west they can see the residences across St. Clement Street and the
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 9 of 24
screening there as well. He showed what the pedestrian crossing currently looks like and noted
the applicant also submitted a concept that shows the kiosk and the canopy. The canopy only
covers a few of the parking spaces and it doesn't extend the length of the kiosk. There are no
windows in the kiosk but it would have doors. The canopy extends enough so that people
loading groceries would be underneath the roof if it is raining or snowing.
The role of the Board is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the applications based on
the facts presented tonight. The applications have to meet all applicable approval criteria with
specific standards pertaining to drive-through facilities, and then the general standards that
apply to all special exceptions. One of the reasons staff wanted to run these all at once is
because the specific standards for drive-throughs can be long and there are three subsections
of them for access and circulation, location and design standards. As they proceed through the
other applications, Lehmann will try to abridge his comments as much as possible.
The first criterion is at 14-4C-2K-3a regarding access and circulation, that the transportation
system should be capable of safely supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the
existing uses in the area. Evaluation factors include street capacity, and level of service, effects
on traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts and pedestrian safety in
addition to following criteria. First, wherever possible and practical drive-through lanes shall be
accessed from secondary streets, alleys or shared cross access drives. In this case, Lehmann
noted the public access points for the property are two off North Dodge and two on St. Clement
Street, both of which are local streets, and those access points are connected by north/south
internal drives and parking aisles. The proposed use is accessed from an internal cross access
drive, not directly from the street, and it would exit into the surface parking lot. While there are
two small parking areas that have two-way access, there appears to be sufficient room for
maneuvering and the drive-through lanes are one-way. In terms of what this looks like on a
map, Lehmann pointed out the four public access points, the north/south cross access drives,
the east/west parking aisles, and the pedestrian routes. The second criterion is to provide for
safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited.
In this case, no changes to curb cuts are being proposed. For safe pedestrian movement,
pedestrian access will be retained and a sidewalk route will be added to the Aisles Online kiosk
for employees. The existing route already has colored pavement where it crosses the internal
drive and that crossing is approximately 20 feet long. There will also be additional painted areas
that will provide access from the kiosk to individual cars to facilitate safety while loading orders.
The third criterion is related to stacking spaces, there must be enough so that safety is not
compromised. A minimum of four is recommended for nonfood related drive-through facilities
and the Board may reduce the number of stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that
the specific business has unique characteristics, such that the recommended number of spaces
is excessive. Lehmann pointed out there are three drive-through lanes with six stacking spaces
each so a total of 18 vehicles can stack there. The facility is for pickup only, not ordering, so it
meets that required minimum. Peak hours provided by the applicant are estimated form 4pm to
6pm Monday through Friday. Staff believes the drive-through lanes are far enough from the
access drive to accommodate some potential spillover traffic, which minimizes safety impacts,
but staff recommends substantial compliance with the site plan as a condition of approval to
ensure that the traffic safety is not compromised. Fourth, sufficient on-site signage and
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 10 of 24
pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian
crossing, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls for safe pedestrian and vehicular
movement. Lehmann noted there are directional arrows at all drive-through entrances and exits.
The signage will direct vehicles to the drive-through, the canopy also serves as wayfinding and
then pavement markings denote the drive-through lanes and loading areas and there are no
pedestrian routes that cross the drive-through lanes. Where there is a pedestrian crossing to
the north it is demarcated with colored pavement to promote safe pedestrian movements the
staff believes that this criterion is met.
With regards to location where drive-throughs are allowed, there's a location standard that
drive-through lanes and service windows must be located on a non-street facing facade unless
the applicant can demonstrate that a street facing location is preferable for the overall safety
and efficiency of the site and does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access and
does not compromise the character of the street shape or neighborhood in which it is located. In
this case, the drive-through lanes are on the non-street facing side of the kiosk. Also the drive-
through lanes have to be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of-
way and screened from view. The drive-through lanes are approximately 30 feet from St.
Clement Street and they will be screened by the kiosk and landscaping which would be at the
S3 standard because it's residential uses across the street. Staff will review that at the time of
site plan review when they receive a landscaping plan with the detailed screening.
With regards to design standards, the number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and
paved area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent residential
properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character
of the area in which it is located. The Board may adjust standards as always. As far as the sub-
criteria with this one, to promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of
drive-through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking spaces do
not diminish the design quality the streetscape, or safety of the pedestrian environment. In this
case, the drive-through lane is proposed in a central location on the north side across from St.
Clement Street from single family homes and some duplexes. The site plan shows three 10- to
12-foot-wide drive-through lanes partially under an awning with the kiosk. Most of the paving
replaces existing paving. There are two parking islands that are proposed to be removed which
are affected by the project. Again because this is across the street from residential uses, S3
screening is required and the landscaping along St. Clement Street would be replaced per the
site plan. Landscaping also has comply with parking landscaping standards located at 14-5A-5I
which states all parking spaces have to be within a certain distance of trees. Because they are
removing islands that have trees in them, they may not comply with that so staff will make sure
their site plan complies during site plan review. The conditional zoning agreement (CZA) also
requires a staff review of the kiosk to ensure the design is appropriate for property near
residential neighborhoods which is required prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff also
believes that the proposed improvements will maintain safety and not negatively affect the
streetscape or pedestrian environments, so this criterion is met. Second is that drive-through
lanes, bays and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent
properties to the S2 standard unless it's across from residential property and then it must be S3.
As mentioned, St. Clement Street would need to be screened to the S3 standard. Although part
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 11 of 24
of the drive-through lanes would be screened by the kiosk, the rest would be future landscaping
incorporated in the landscaping plan. Third, multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane
should be considered to reduce idling on site. This is a pickup only location and employees
come out to load vehicles so there are no windows provided, but they do provide multiple lanes
and they use incremental time slots to try and reduce idling on site. Four, stacking spaces,
driveways and drive-through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape
design of the neighborhood in which it is located. The proposed project creates no new
vehicular and pedestrian conflicts, however there will be employees going into the par ked areas
so there are some conflicts where employees load vehicles that's relatively sporadic, and it
doesn't affect pedestrian access. There may also be some conflicts between vehicles accessing
the drive-through lanes and those accessing the parking at the entry and exit but staff believes
there's adequate room to maneuver and adequate signage and pavement markings to help
direct traffic. Again, the CZA design review condition helps ensure that the building is integrated
in the surrounding streetscape and the proposed facility is similar to existing uses, which are
auto-oriented so staff believes that the proposed use will be consistent. Fifth, that lighting for the
drive-through must comply with outdoor lighting standards and must be designed to prevent
light trespass and glare on to neighboring residential properties. Lehmann noted there is a
photometric plan that's submitted as part of the application but generally lighting is reviewed at
site plan and if there are issues, they would need to address it to meet the code standards. The
sixth condition was repealed. The final specific conditions is that loudspeakers or intercom
systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses,
with special consideration given to uses next to residential uses. In this case there are no
loudspeakers or intercom systems as part of this project but staff recommends a condition that
no external loudspeakers or intercom systems be installed to mitigate any future issues. All
three of the applications have these findings and this condition.
Regarding the seven general standards, for this site at 1125 North Dodge, first the specific
proposed special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, or general welfare. Lehmann noted the facility isn't expected to increase traffic to the
site because it should replace in-store trips which should minimize some of the issues. As far
as traffic circulation and access goes, staff believes it is adequate for drive-through traffic as
long as it conforms to that site plan as submitted. Staff also recommends that drive-through
lanes remain pickup only to help keep smooth traffic flow rather than installing future systems.
No new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed facility except where
vehicles will be loaded by employees. And while there are some potential conflicts between
vehicles that are parking and vehicles utilizing the drive-through lanes, staff doesn't see that as
an issue so staff believes that this criterion is met.
The second criterion is regarding whether the use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
property in the immediate vicinity or affect property values negatively. Lehmann stated the
screening and kiosk will mitigate impacts of the streetscape and adjacent properties. Again, the
conditional zoning agreement requires design review so staff would review that prior to issuance
of a building permit. In this case, the proposed facility is adjacent to residential uses so staff
recommends that the hours of operation be limited from 6am to 9pm weekdays and from 6am to
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 12 of 24
10pm on weekends to mitigate potential noise impacts. Finally, no loudspeakers or intercom
systems are provided as part of this project.
The third criterion is if the special exception will affect development or improvement of
surrounding properties. Lehmann noted the area is fully developed with a mix of uses,
residential, commercial and institutional, and staff doesn't believe redevelopment is affected.
Fourth, to ensure there's adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities.
Again, it's a developed area it's got access to all necessary facilities. Pedestrian access is
maintained and internal circulation is sufficient. The project will include relocating an electric
vehicle charging station that's currently on the site and a light pole/vertical wind turbine but that
would be reviewed as part of site plan review and they are showing that it would be moved.
Fifth criterion is regarding traffic congestion and public streets. Lehmann stated there is
adequate space for 18 vehicles to stack in the drive-through lanes and some additional space
for overflow. Everything's accessed from internal drives and exits into the parking area and
there's signage and pavement markings to help direct traffic. Staff doesn't believe it's going to
affect anything on public streets with regards to ingress or egress.
Criterion six states it must conform with all other zoning standards. As far as parking goes,
HyVee has more than enough parking, 215 parking spaces would be retained which is well
above the 189 spaces required, even after losing an entire parking aisle. There are two tree
planters that would be removed and as Lehmann previously mentioned in standard 14-5A-5I it
requires that every parking space is within 40 feet of a small tree or 60 feet of a large tree. So
depending on the size of the trees that are being retained along the streets, new planters may
be needed to comply with the standards and that would be reviewed as part of the landscaping
plan during site plan review. Again, there's also the CZA requirement for design review to
ensure that it's compatible to adjacent residential neighborhoods and other standards would be
reviewed during site plan and building permit review.
Finally, the seventh criterion is that the proposed exception will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map shows this as
general commercial and North District Plan shows it as retail community commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan supports encouraging retention and expansion of existing businesses and
the current land use is consistent and won't change because of the approved exception.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0003, to allow a drive-through facility for the property
located at 1125 N. Dodge Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated June 8, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited.
4. Hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm weekdays and from 6:00 am to
10:00 pm weekends.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 13 of 24
Carlson asked about the hours of operation, it’s mentioned in this exception but there's no
mention of hours of operation on the other two and wondered why. Lehmann stated hours of
operation are not a standard, the special exception is a discretionary process. In this case, the
use is directly adjacent to residential uses. In the other cases, the drive-through facilities are
predominantly across the street from commercial uses, so staff believed it was appropriate in
this case and not in the other cases. However, if the Board would like they could add time
limitations on other ones as well. Carlson asked what the hours of operation for that store are.
Staff did not look at the hours of operation of the store, but these do fit within the hours
expected by the applicant. The other part of it is that store hours may change but this condition
would follow the property if there were new owners or if the store hours changed.
Staff moved onto the next application, noting the applicant will speak at the end of all three, as
well as answer any Board questions.
EXC21-0004: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow
drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at
Iowa City Hy-Vee #1 located at 1720 Waterfront Drive.
Lehmann stated this is a similar use at 1720 Waterfront Drive. He showed a map of the area
south of Highway 6. The grocery store is at the center south side of the site with parking to the
north. It's pretty much commercial uses all around and the zoning map reflects that with
community commercial for most of the area and some intensive commercial to the south. The
proposed drive-through lane is directly east of the building and it would replace the parking aisle
closest to the building. The Waterfront Drive grocery store is larger at 96,000 square feet and on
a lot of about 8.6 acres zoned community commercial. This store was initially built in 1996 and
expanded in 2010. As far as vehicular access for the site, there are three access points on
Boyrum Street and three on Waterfront Drive. Internal drives are east/west with north/south
parking aisles, and the loading area is west of building. As for pedestrian routes, there are two
access points on Boyrum Street and one on Waterfront Drive that both connect to the
pedestrian area north of the building that runs directly along the building face. The route along
the building face is demarcated by bollards along the building and by colored pavement where it
crosses internal drive aisles. The proposed drive-through would be four lanes, it would be
accessed from the internal drive to the north and be one-way directional to the south, which
would allow egress on Boyrum Street at the southernmost access point. There would be an
addition that would be included on the building, and a canopy as well. It’s currently proposed
with no order boards or intercom systems and the proposal does not affect pedestrian facilities.
In the area directly east of the building, the parking aisle closest to the building is what would be
replaced with the drive-through lanes. The concept shows five cars that could be stacked with a
two-car loading area and the construction of a landscaped medium between the drive-through
lanes and the parking aisle that would be retained to the east. In this case, both the entry and
exit would be one directional because there isn't parking at the entry or exit. Again, the canopy
would basically cover the walkway.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the specific crite ria
located at 14-4C-2K-3 and general criteria located at 14-4B-3 must be met. Regarding specific
criteria, the first regarding access and circulation states it has to be accessed from secondary
streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. The property is accessed from those three points
on Boyrum Street, which is the local street, and three on Waterfront Drive, which is also a local
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 14 of 24
street. They're connected by east/west internal drives and it's from one of those internal drives,
specifically the one closest to the building, that this one way would be accessed. It would also
exit into an internal drive as well, which would be the southmost one, and would allow one to
exit out directly onto either Boyrum Street or go north again through the parking aisle.
Regarding pedestrian access, there is a path along the outside of the property and a route
through the middle of the property, but those are not proposed to be affected by the project. The
next criterion is regarding safe pedestrian movements and curb cuts. No changes to curb cuts
are being proposed nor are there changes to the existing pedestrian route. The route is already
marked with colored pavement where it crosses the drive aisle, and the crossings are around 25
to 35 feet long and are demarcated which provides for safe pedestrian access. No new conflicts
are created because the pedestrian crossing is already there. As far as accessing the kiosk,
employees will reach it through the store, and there'll be additional painted areas providing
access from the addition to the individual cars to safely load orders. With regard to stacking
spaces, there are four drive-through lanes, each with five stacking spaces for 20 total. The
drive-through facility is for pickup only, not ordering, so this is adequate for the use being
proposed. Peak hours are the same as North Dodge, after work, 4pm to 6pm, Monday through
Friday. The drive-through lanes are far enough away from the access drive to accommodate
some limited spillover traffic, it's not as much room as in the North Dodge case but they could
probably fit one or two cars if there were issues. Staff recommends substantial compliance with
the site plan as a condition of approval again. As far as on-site signage and pavement markings
for vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs etc., there are directional arrows at all
access points and drive-through lanes. Drive-through lanes are denoted with pavement
markings as well as signage. There's also signage to direct folks to the entry and a do not enter
sign at the exit. As for crossover between the parking aisle and the drive-through lanes, there's
a landscaped planner that would be installed and the pedestrian crossings are already marked
with colored concrete, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement.
Regarding location, first, it must be on a non-street facing location unless shown to be otherwise
preferable. In this case, it is on the Boyrum Street facing facade which staff believes is
preferable for the safety and efficiency of the site since it will utilize that existing building facade
and does not affect pedestrian access. The neighborhood is commercial, and the facility will be
replacing existing car-oriented uses and will enhance existing landscaping so staff doesn't
believe it will negatively impact surrounding properties. However, to ensure a consistent view
shed for the streetscape (similar to the ImOn project), staff recommends that the new addition
harmonize with the existing building as it relates to materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses
to be reviewed during site plan review. Second for location, is that the drive-through lanes are
set back at least 10 feet. These drive-through lanes are set back about 100 feet and they will be
screened both by the existing screening along the street right-of-way, but also by trees shown in
their new landscape plan. The landscape plan will also be submitted as part of site plan review.
Regarding design standards and compatibility with surrounding uses, the proposed drive-
through facility is east of the building and across Boyrum Street from commercial uses. There
are four lanes with the partial awning and the addition as well. Nearly all paving replaces
existing paving and screening is required between the lanes and Boyrum Street, shown through
the existing landscaping and through additional trees in the new landscaping plan. In addition,
the existing pedestrian pathways already have color concrete, which facilitates safe pedestrian
access and where the pedestrian crossing is located, cars will be turning so they would already
be looking to yield which will help maintain pedestrian safety. The proposed improvements will
help maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkway and won't affect the quality of the
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 15 of 24
streetscape. As far as screening goes, it needs to be to the S2 standard in this case because
there aren't residential uses across the street. It will be met with both existing and proposed
additional landscaping. Regarding drive-through windows, this is the same findings as the North
Dodge site as it’s pickup only and they use incremental slots to reduce idling so there aren't
windows. With regards to minimizing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts integrated in the
surrounding streetscape, there aren't any new vehicular and pedestrian conflicts that are
created except where employees will load vehicles, and the landscape medium reduces the
potential for vehicular conflicts as well. Staff believes that the recommended conditions are
enough to ensure that it matches the neighborhood. In addition, lighting has to comply with
outdoor lighting standards same as North Dodge. There's a photometric plan that's submitted as
part of the application that staff will review for compliance during site plan review. The final
specific criterion is that loud speakers or intercom systems should be located to minimize
disturbances to adjacent uses. Staff recommends the same conditions as North Dodge and
there are no loudspeakers or intercom systems as part of the project.
Moving onto the general standards affecting health, safety, public comfort or general welfare.
It's not expected to increase vehicular trips and circulation is adequate for the site. Staff
recommends the same conditions with regards to the lanes remain pickup only and otherwise
believes that that these conditions are met.
Second, that it won't injure the use or enjoyment of adjacent property. Screening will help
mitigate impacts to the streetscape and adjacent properties and the uses are consistent with
adjacent properties. The conditions as recommended will help ensure that this is met as well.
Third, that it won't affect development on surrounding properties. The area is already fully
developed and won't affect development on surrounding properties.
With regards to infrastructure, the fourth criteria, sufficient infrastructure is already provided, and
pedestrian access will be maintained. Staff will ensure compliance during site plan review.
As far as ingress or egress on public streets, there's adequate space for 20 vehicles in the
drive-through lane and limited space for overflow. There's adequate pavement and signage
markings to direct traffic so staff doesn't believe that it's going to affect public streets.
Six, regarding the special exception that all other standards in the code are met. Again, parking
is more than adequate for the site even with the loss of a parking aisle and other standards will
be reviewed during site plan review, but staff did not notice any potential issues at this moment.
Finally, regarding the Comprehensive Plan, it shows this area as general commercial, and the
South District Plan shows this is as commercial. The other findings are the same as for North
Dodge that it won't change the use of the site.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0004, to allow a drive through facility for the property
located at 1720 Waterfront Drive, subject to the following c onditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan dated August 20, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited.
4. The new building addition must harmonize with existing buildings on the site as it relates
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 16 of 24
to building materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses, as determined by the Development
Services Coordinator during site plan review.
Moving on to the third application.
EXC21-0014: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow
drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at
Iowa City Hy-Vee #2 located at 812 S. 1st Avenue.
Lehmann noted this HyVee is located north of Muscatine Avenue and east of South First
Avenue. The building is in the center of the site with open space to the north and parking to the
south. Much of that area to the north is open space due to sensitive features of Ralston Creek
South Branch. There are some multifamily uses to the east, single family uses to the north and
northwest and then commercial uses to the west and to the south. As far as zoning, it is zoned
community commercial, as are the properties to the south and directly to the west. There are
some single-family zoning to the northwest and to the north and some multifamily zoning to the
east. This community commercial zone does have a design review overlay because it's part of
the Towncrest Design Review District which requires staff review of proposed buildings,
landscaping, and parking, and that is a separate process. As far as where the drive-through
facility is proposed, it's directly west of the existing building. This grocery store is 66,000 square
feet built in 1997 and expanded in 2001. Three vehicular access points are off First Avenue and
one is on Muscatine Avenue. There are two east/west internal drives connected by north/south
parking aisles. There is also a parking aisle west of the building that connects to the northern
most First Avenue access point, and that's where the drive-through facility is proposed.
Pedestrian routes are provided at two access points on First Avenue, but they are generally not
demarcated where they cross vehicular drives. The proposed drive -through facility replaces
existing parking west of the building on First Avenue with two drive-through lanes which make
use of some existing drive through lanes south of the building winds around building. It would
be one direction from north to south and there would also be a parking aisle to the west of the
lanes, which would also be one direction from north to south. Again, there are no proposed
order boards or intercom systems and the site plan shows demarcated pedestrian crossings
from the west, which would be an improvement over the current site. The two drive-through
lanes would basically wrap around the west building face and be integrated into the existing
drive-through lanes south of the building and would exit southeast into that internal drive aisle
just south of the building. Again, this plan converts the parking aisle to one direction from north
south, so there would be no access to the drive-through through the parking lot, one would have
to go on First Avenue. Lehmann noted however the intent is most people who would use the
drive-through would replace their trips to the store and so that wouldn't be a concern. Lehmann
showed a picture of the current pedestrian crossings, the northernmost one comes from the
trail, and to the south they're proposing a painted crosswalk which would directly cross the lanes
with a small pedestrian island between the parking aisle to the west and the drive-through to the
east. There is a door on the west side of the building and staff added a condition regarding that
as well depending on whether that's open to the public or not, it appears to be closed access
but staff is waiting on confirmation that it would remain closed as part of this project. Staff
believes it would be used for employees to have their own route to get to the cars.
The role of the Board is the same regarding specific and general standards with the specific
standards being those related to drive-through facilities. The first set of criteria are related to
access and circulation. Wherever possible and practical, they must be accessed from
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 17 of 24
secondary streets, etc. there are three access points on First Avenue and one access point on
Muscatine Avenue to the south, both are minor arterials, and those access points are connected
by east/west internal drives and parking aisles. The drive-through lanes could only be accessed
to the north from First Avenue, but it is technically accessed through a parking aisle so it meets
this standard. The drive-through cannot be directly accessed from streets and must exit into the
internal aisle and not a street. Lehmann showed the three access points on First Avenue and
the one on Muscatine, and he pointed out parking aisles and pedestrian routes throughout the
site. The project proposes all aisles and pedestrian routes be marked with pavement markings.
Second is to provide safe pedestrian movements, the number of curb cuts serving the use may
be limited. Lehmann stated no changes to curb cuts are being proposed but the existing
pedestrian routes aren't currently marked where they cross existing drives and the
southernmost pedestrian route would cross the drive-through facility. The site plan shows that
would be striped with the crossings being about 16 to 24 feet long with a pedestrian island in the
middle. The northern route would not cross the facility, but it would be striped across the drive
and that crossing is about 25 feet long. As far as stacking spaces, the two drive-through lanes
each have about nine spaces for a total of 18 which meets the required number, and they are
for pickup only, not ordering. Peak hours are the same. It is again far enough from the access
drive that it would minimize traffic safety impacts and staff recommends compliance with the site
plan to ensure traffic safety is not compromised. As far as sufficient onsite signage and
pavement markings, there are directional arrows shown at all access points and drive-through
lanes and there’s other pavement markings. There's the separated curb between the drive-
through facility and the parking drive aisle to the west, signage to direct vehicles to the entrance,
and there's a do not enter sign at the exit where they would not be able to move north from the
rest of the parking lot. Otherwise, pedestrian crossings would also be marked as part of this
project, which helps ensure safe pedestrian movement.
For location standards, the facility is on the street facing facade towards First Avenue but it will
utilize the existing building facade. For that reason, staff believes it's preferable for the overall
safety and efficiency of the site. It improves pedestrian access, so staff also sees that as
beneficial. There are residential areas to the north, but the area directly across First Avenue is
commercial so it only requires the S2 standard which is less than the S3 standard. The drive-
through use will replace car-oriented uses, so it won't particularly affect the neighborhood
character and the property is in the Towncrest Design Review District so staff would review any
new structures and any new parking areas to be consistent with the Towncrest Design Review
District Plan adopted by the City, and that helps ensure consistency with surrounding properties.
The drive-through lanes also have to be set back 10 feet and here they're set back 40 feet from
First Avenue. They need to be screened to the S2 standard because it's commercial across the
street, so a landscape plan will be submitted as part of site plan review.
Regarding design standards, and compatibility with surrounding developments, the amount of
drive-through lanes may be limited for stacking and/or for paving. The drive-through is west of
the building in the center of the site across First Avenue from commercial uses. The two drive -
through lanes are about 12 feet wide along the west edge of the existing building, and it utilizes
the existing awning so there are limited changes to the streetscape in those regards. There's
also S2 screening required along the First Avenue right-of-way so the existing landscaping
would need to be enhanced because the current screening does not meet the standard. The
pedestrian pathways would also be enhanced as part of the project with striping where they
cross the drives and a small pedestrian island by the drive-through facility will help maintain
safety for those utilizing pedestrian routes. Again, because of commercial areas across the
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 18 of 24
street to the west, it would be screened to the S2 standard and based on the landscaping plan ,
staff believes this standard will be met. With regards to windows and intercom systems for the
drive-through, staff recommends the same conditions as the other two applications. With
regards to minimizing potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and being integrated into
the streetscape, again generally no new conflicts are created, there are existing pedestrian
routes that cross it already and there is a curb being proposed between the drive-through lanes
and parking aisle that should reduce potential vehicular conflicts. The areas where employees
will load cars will again be as a potential conflict but is relatively minor. There may be potential
conflicts created where vehicles exit the drive-through because they have to cross the existing
drive aisle south of the building and this would reverse the direction of traffic for the existing
drive-through, but cars will leave straight ahead, they’ll be leaving one at a time, and the area
has slow traffic speeds already. Landscaping will also be enhanced as part of the project with
regards to the surrounding neighborhood and the project is subject to the Towncrest Design
Review. Overall staff believes that those vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are minimized to the
extent possible. With lighting, staff had the same finding as the other two applications. With
regards to loudspeakers or intercom systems, staff makes the same recommendation, including
the same condition regarding future loudspeakers or intercoms.
Regarding general standards, the special exception cannot not endanger health, safety, comfort
or general welfare. Staff has similar findings and conditions, it’s not expected to increase
vehicular traffic so no new conflicts created that are of significant concern to staff, and also the
condition to ensure smooth traffic flow by retaining pickup only status. There may be s ome
potential vehicular conflicts where cars exit, and the entry is also where there's currently the
loading area, but there's adequate room to maneuver. Staff believes that pavement markings
and signage will help direct traffic, loading times can be coordinated with pickup times as well,
and overall those things can be worked around by the applicant. The other issue staff wanted to
touch on briefly was that the existing pedestrian route leads to a door that staff believes is
currently is not available to the public, staff is waiting on confirmation if it will be open to the
public but to ensure a safe pedestrian route if that entrance is not public, staff recommends that
there be a complete demarcated pedestrian route at least four feet in width from the sidewalk to
the interior of the building to be reviewed as part of the design review process. Lehmann noted
that standard would be similar to what would be incorporated into a Towncrest Design Review
anyway since they're looking at the parking areas and access so staff believes that's an
appropriate time to include the condition but it just ensures it's there so that it will be reviewed.
As far as effects on surrounding properties, screening will be enhanced which will help mitigate
streetscape impacts and it's in the Towncrest Design Review District so it is subject to those
standards as well. With regards to surrounding development, ensuring that it can occur, it's
already the area is fully developed with a mix of residential, commercial and institutional uses
and staff doesn't believe that future development would be affected by the proposed exception.
Regarding adequate infrastructure, this exception provides additional benefits in that it includes
pedestrian striping and a condition for pedestrian access to the primary building so staff
believes this criterion is met. The project will also relocate an existing bicycle rack required by
bicycle parking requirements in the code. With regards to ingress or egress on public streets,
again there's adequate space for more than 18 vehicles to stack with some limited space for
overflow, it will not affect ingress or egress on public streets and it should be possible to exit
safely. In addition, signage and pavement markings will help direct traffic. For compliance with
other standards, this site like the others has an excess of parking so that standard is met.
However, parking areas were developed prior to current zoning standards so where pavement
is replaced, they will need to comply with current standards and bring it up to code, and staff will
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 19 of 24
review that during site plan review. Lehmann noted there's also Ralston Creek to the north
which is a sensitive area, and the 100-year flood zone, so during site plan review staff will
ensure that work is conducted outside of those areas. If it is conducted within those areas that
will requires a separate application for sensitive areas. Based on submitted site plan, staff
doesn't believe that's an issue. All other standards staff believes are met by the proposed site
plan. With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, this area is shown as general commercial, and
the Southeast District Plan shows it as commercial. Otherwise, there are the same provisions
that support the proposed use.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0014, to allow a drive-through facility for the property
located at 812 S. 1st Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated August 6, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited
4. A complete, demarcated pedestrian route at least 4 feet in width from the sidewalk to the
interior of the building must be approved as part of the design review process.
Pretorius asked about screening and landscaping and if that is something the City requires or
something the applicant is offering and what is the difference between parked versus stack ed
cars for screening. Lehmann explained screening standards change slightly based on parking
and drive-through areas. The S2 standard is the general standard for areas around commercial
uses and the S3 standard, which is slightly denser landscaping, is required by residential areas
because they are more sensitive uses. Lehmann added the Board can place conditions on an
exception if they believe that a higher level of landscaping is required as long as it's related to
approval criteria, such as if the Board found cars idling more unattractive than cars parked.
John Brehm (Director, Site Planning, HyVee) began by stating they are in agreement with all of
staff’s recommendations on all three of these applications so there's no issues there from their
standpoint. Brehm is happy to answer Board questions and give any background information.
Carlson had a general question about the lighting, is the lighting on all the time, 24 hours a day
or is it on only when the drive-through is being used for loading. Brehm replied they leave the
parking lot lights on all the time for safety but the kiosk lights will be turned off at night.
Russon noted regarding the condition of a four-foot walkway for the First Avenue project, is that
still being reviewed by HyVee. Lehmann replied with regards to the walkway, staff mentioned
that because there's a door staff initially believed would provide public access until visiting the
site and seeing that it didn't appear to be public. So based on that staff added the condition that
it would be reviewed during design review, which would includes the development services
coordinator, senior building inspector, and senior planner. Currently there isn't an identified
location for it as long as they provide a direct pedestrian access to the interior. Brehm replied
based on the condition, they can provide a way to the front of the store. He needs to check on
the use of that particular door that's been referenced, he doesn’t know if that's for public access
or just employees. Either way they can get a pedestrian access to the front of the store.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 20 of 24
Benjamin Samaniego and Jorge Medina (710 South First Avenue) reside directly north of the
property and wanted to make sure it wasn't going to affect his property. He recently purchased it
about a year ago and was informed when he was purchasing it that he owns all the land up to
the bridge pathway leading up to HyVee. So he just was concerned over that fact that it wouldn't
infringe on his property and take away from his property. Lehmann noted that the project
impacts the parking area directly west of the store and will not impact the property to the north.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion.
Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0003, to allow a drive-through facility for the
property located at 1125 N. Dodge Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated June 8, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited.
4. Hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm weekdays and from 6:00 am to
10:00 pm weekends.
Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson finds that it does not interfere with other parts of the business, the restaurant in this
case is on the other end of the building. People can enter and exit this drive-through by itself
and there may be some minor problems but nothing major and she really likes this design.
Pretorius agrees, there's currently a Band-Aid there with the temporary storage container
situation, regarding the pandemic that's probably even quite more dangerous than what they’re
talking about here. This is probably a way of making what's going on safer.
Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0003 he does concur with the findings set
forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 2021 and concludes that the general
and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he
recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this
proposal. Russo seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Pretorius 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.
Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0004, to allow a drive through facility for the
property located at 1720 Waterfront Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan dated August 20, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited.
4. The new building addition must harmonize with existing buildings on the site as it
relates to building materials, colors, textures, lines, and masses, as determined by the
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 21 of 24
Development Services Coordinator during site plan review.
Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson again finds this is a wonderful plan as the restaurant and the deli are at the other end of
the building and this is not going to impact egress or ingress to the main entrances of the
building. A person parking in the parking lot and going into the store can do that and feel safe.
Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0004 he does concur with the findings set
forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 2021 and concludes that the general
and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he
recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval o f this
proposal. Russo seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Pretorius 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.
Chrischilles moved for approval EXC21-0014, to allow a drive-through facility for the
property located at 812 S. 1st Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with site plan dated August 6, 2021.
2. The drive-through lanes shall remain pick-up only.
3. Installation of external loudspeakers or intercom systems is prohibited
4. A complete, demarcated pedestrian route at least 4 feet in width from the sidewalk to
the interior of the building must be approved as part of the design review process
Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson stated she is somewhat uncomfortable with some of the aspects of this one. She is very
concerned about a person who is parked in the lot and wants to enter the s tore because of the
fact that the exit to the drive-through is so close to the main entrance which services the grocery
store, Starbucks, the restaurant, the deli, the post office, and there is a lot of pedestrian traffic
close to where the cars come out. The cars can either make this strange U-turn or they have to
cross the traffic and go down two lanes to get out of the parking lot. She goes to that store all
the time and knows what the traffic situation is like there, and this makes her very nervous. Th e
temporary pick up is between two of the entrances on First Avenue, it's where the landscaping
thing is usually in the springtime, and maybe that would be an alternative. She reads all these
things about the truck traffic and that they would have to coordinate and she didn’t see any of
those comments in either of the other plans, which she feels are great. This one is a more
challenging site and she is concerned about the safety of people who will be using the facility.
Pretorius asked to see a picture of the front of the current covered space and noted that
currently there is a covered area that serves pickup grocery or it had historically and maybe still
does to some degree. Carlson stated it is for pickup, but the cars do not exit out in front of this.
Pretorius asked then what is the difference between a car coming out of the parking lot to enter
this space to pick up the groceries versus a car leaving the space with the groceries already in
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 22 of 24
hand, are the cars traveling at different speeds, are they paying less attention to what's going
on, either way they're crossing the pedestrian traffic as it comes in whether they're coming into
this current area or coming out of it. What is the difference in safety. Carlson stated if they're
facing First Avenue they would probably be on the right hand side and would not be crossing a
lane to go into it and then when they exit it they would be going away from the store. Carlson
noted there are comments that say that where vehicles exit they must cross the access drive.
There may be some potential conflicts between vehicles entering the drive-through lanes and
the trucks utilizing the loading area and for vehicles exiting the drive-through lanes there is
adequate room to maneuver, and pavement markings and signage are sufficient to ensure safe
traffic flow. Carlson is concerned about pedestrians and this site is the only one where they
included a map of how the vehicles exiting could leave into the parking lot.
Chrischilles asked what are they exiting, the kiosk. Carlson replied yes, the kiosk, to leave the
kiosk, vehicles have a choice of making a huge U-turn or going out on First Avenue. She is
asking is there someplace else where this could be done where vehicles wouldn't have to do
this U-turn to get out on First Avenue. Chrischilles stated vehicles don’t need to do a U-turn, to
get on First Avenue, they just go straight out and go right or go left. Lehmann explained the
applicant’s movement plan shows they could do either, staff anticipates that they would not do
U-turns typically but rather most people would go straight ahead based on the orientation of the
facility though it is possible to U-turn and exit out the middle access point to First Avenue.
Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0014 he does concur with the findings set
forth in the staff report of this meeting date, September 8, 2021 and concludes that the general
and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he
recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this
proposal. Russo seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-1 (Carlson dissenting).
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s
Office.
CONSIDER THE AUGUST 11, 2021 MINUTES:
Russo moved to approve the minutes of August 11, 2021, Chrischilles seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Lehmann had no announcements other than he will coordinate with Bryce Parker to try and
figure out what happened as to why he couldn’t access the meeting.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 23 of 24
ADJOURNMENT:
Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Carlson seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 2021
Page 24 of 24
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021
NAME
TERM
EXP.
7/14 8/11 9/8
CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 O/E X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O
PRETORIUS, AMY 12/31/2023 X X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2021 X X X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member