HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2021 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, June 9, 2021
Electronic Meeting — 5:15 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff
and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by joining
the Zoom meeting via the internet by going to
https:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/tJEtdO6vgzMiG93pMOrh4hyUu3ly Xga--7bS. If
you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you
can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 950-
3775-8819 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Exception Item
a. EXC21-0005: An application submitted by PM Design Group to allow a drive -
through facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for a remote Automated
Teller Machine (ATM) at 1600 Sycamore Street.
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 14, 2021
5. Board of Adjustment Announcements
6. Adjournment
If you will 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: July 14 / August 11 / September 8
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21 =0005
ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC21-0005
Parcel Number: 1014457007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: June 9, 2021
PM Design Group, Inc.
1101 S. Central Expy
Allen, TX 75013
Taylor Hall
PM Design Group, Inc.
1101 S. Central Expy
Allen, TX 75013
Thall.pmdg@gmail.com
Core Sycamore Town Center LLC
1600 Dove Street, Suite 450
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Special Exception to allow adrive-through facility in
a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
To allow construction of a remote drive -through
Automated Teller Machine (ATM)
1600 Sycamore Street
Size: Approximately 21.036 acres for the parcel but
2,586 square feet for the drive -through facility
1
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
(relative to proposed use)
Applicable Code Sections:
File Date:
BACKGROUND:
Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
North: Industrial; General Industrial (I-1)
East: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
South: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
West: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
April 13, 2021
PM Design Group, on behalf of US Bank, submitted a special exception request for a drive -through
facility to allow construction of a remote Automated Teller Machine (ATM) and drive -through lane
associated with the Iowa City Marketplace at 1600 Sycamore Street. While the property itself is over
21 acres, the proposed drive -through facility will be approximately 2,586 square feet located south
of the intersection of Lower Muscatine Road and Mall Drive, on the east side of the site. The
proposed use is surrounded by commercial land uses that are part of the Iowa City Marketplace to
the west and south, by commercial uses across Lower Muscatine Road to the east, and by industrial
uses to the north.
Vehicular access for the parcel is provided at two points, Lower Muscatine Road to the
northeast and Sycamore Street to the west. Internal drives provide circulation between these
access points, across the property, and to the three buildings on the site, including the Iowa City
Marketplace building, formerly the Sycamore Mall. Between these drives, vehicular access is
provided through parking drive aisles, including access to the proposed drive -through
facility. Sidewalks are provided to the west along Sycamore Street and to the east along part
of Lower Muscatine Road from Deforest Avenue to Mall Drive. Pedestrian pathways
connected to these sidewalks provide access by three routes to buildings through the
surface parking lots from the west, north, and east. These connect to a pedestrian way along
the north and east building face of the Iowa City Marketplace. There is currently no sidewalk
along Lower Muscatine Road from the intersection of Mall Drive to S. 1St Avenue.
The proposed accessory drive -through facility would replace 10 existing parking spaces
adjacent to Lower Muscatine Road south of its intersection with Mall Drive. The concept plan
(Attachment 4) shows one drive -through lane and an ATM. The entry to the drive -through lane
would be from the southeast, which would be accessed through the surface parking lot. The
drive -through lane exits into the surface lot as well. Traffic flows through the drive -through
facility in the same direction as adjacent traffic through the surface parking lot.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare; to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage
the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board
may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance
with the specific criteria included in Section 14-4C-2K-3, pertaining to approval of Drive
Through facilities requiring special exceptions, as well as the general approval criteria in
Section 14-4B-3A.
2
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception, each of the following criterion below
must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion
may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below.
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
1. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the
area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on
traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian
safety in addition to the following criteria:
a. Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access
drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may
impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting
the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be
enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property has two vehicular access points from primary streets,
Lower Muscatine Road to the northeast and Sycamore Street to the west.
• Several shared cross access drives provide circulation between the access
points, across the property, and to the three buildings on the site.
• The proposed drive -through facility would be accessed from a shared cross
access drive through the surface parking lot, most likely from where Mall
Drive intersects Lower Muscatine Road.
• The drive -through facility has a one-way access point from southeast to
northwest that flows with adjacent traffic through the surface parking lot.
b. To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is
subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
FINDINGS:
• No changes to curb cuts are being proposed as part of the project.
• The nearest existing pedestrian route, located northwest of the proposed drive -
through facility, will not be significantly impacted.
• There may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance
to the parking lot, but traffic speeds along the internal drives are low, visibility is
good, and the pedestrian pathway is clearly demarcated with colored pavement.
c. An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is
recommended for drive -through facilities associated with eating establishments
and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar
nonfood related drive -through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as
being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The
01
board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant
can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that
the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through
that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
• The concept plan shows a drive -through lane with 3 stacking spaces, which is
one fewer than the recommended number of spaces.
• The recommended number of stacking spaces is excessive for this use due to
the unique characteristics of an ATM, which has shorter transaction times and
relatively low peak hour volume usage.
• Based on data provided by the applicant for May 2021 (Attachment 3), peak
hours are estimated to be 1:00 pm through 5:00 pm on weekdays and 10:00 am
through 5:00 pm on weekends, with heaviest use on Fridays and Saturdays.
• Based on data provided by the applicant for May 2021 (Attachment 3), less than
3% of hour-long timeslots saw more than 10 users. The highest volume during a
timeslot was 19 users, which occurred once. Even at this highest volume, which
averages to 3 minutes and 9 seconds per user, the longest potential wait time for
vehicles within the 3 stacking spaces would be approximately 9.5 minutes.
• The parking drive aisle can accommodate potential spillover traffic from the drive -
through lane, and traffic volumes are slow enough to maintain traffic safety.
d. Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance
areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
FINDINGS:
• The concept plan indicates that pavement markings include directional arrows in
the drive -through lane, "enter only" at the entrance, and "exit only" at the exit.
• Existing parking striping will be removed and new striping provided that
distinguishes the drive -through lane from the former parking spaces.
• The concept plan does not include signage. Staff recommends installing a "do
not enter" sign at the drive -through lane exit to ensure safe vehicular movement.
• With staff's recommendation, the proposed use will have sufficient onsite controls
to guide traffic.
2. Location:
a. In the C13-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and
efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access,
and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through lane is parallel with Lower Muscatine Road. While it is not
associated with a building, it is on the street -facing side of the ATM.
4
• This layout is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site because it
allows right -turn access to the drive -through lane for the adjacent traffic lane and
consequently reduces potential traffic conflicts.
• Nearby uses are commercial, and the drive -through lane will replace existing
surface parking. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the required
landscaping that will act as a visual buffer, the drive -through lane will not
compromise the character of the streetscape.
• The location of the drive -through lane does not affect pedestrian access.
b. Drive -through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot
lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design
standards below.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through lane is set back more than 10 feet from the Lower Muscatine
Road right-of-way.
• The proposed drive -through lane shall be screened to the S2 standard.
3. Design Standards: The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or
the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of
adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the
circumstances affecting the site.
a. To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive -
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking
space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
• The concept plan proposes one approximately 10-foot wide drive -through lane
with 3 stacking spaces which will replace existing 10 paved parking spaces. No
new paving is being proposed as part of this project.
• S2 screening is required between the drive -through lane and the Lower
Muscatine Road right-of-way. Existing trees and landscaping should be retained
and incorporated in this landscaping where possible.
• The nearest pedestrian walkway is delineated with colored pavement which
helps maintain the safety of those utilizing the walkway.
• No pedestrian pathway is provided along the south side of Lower Muscatine
Road. Space should be reserved to allow a future pedestrian connection.
• The proposed facility will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the
safety of the pedestrian environment.
b. Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through
is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be
screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve
the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront
crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated
5
within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping.
Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed
to complement the principal building on the site.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through facility is not adjacent to residential uses.
• Landscaping along Lower Muscatine Road shall be provided at the S2 standard.
c. Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling
on the site.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through facility is an ATM, with an anticipated through -put of
approximately 2 minutes per user according to the applicant.
• Multiple machines are not necessary to reduce the amount of idling onsite.
d. Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to
minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated
into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• While there may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the
entrance to the surface parking lot, no new pedestrian conflicts are created by
the proposed drive -through facility.
• Traffic speeds along the internal drives are low, visibility is good, and the
pedestrian pathway is clearly demarcated with colored pavement, which helps
protect pedestrians crossing the parking drive aisle entrance.
• Vehicular conflicts are reduced by having the proposed ATM separate the drive -
through lane from the parking drive aisle. However, staff recommends additional
physical separation by using a curb, planter boxes or other similar control
devices approved by the City Engineer.
• The immediate area is commercial in nature, which is a less sensitive use, and
screening will help soften the appearance of the facility from the right-of-way.
• The proposed facilities will replace existing parking spaces. As such, the drive -
through facility will be visually similar as an auto -oriented use.
e. Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting
standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties.
FINDINGS:
• The concept plan proposes one overhead light with two LED fixtures.
• Staff shall review any new lighting for the site in compliance with current code
standards as part of the site plan review process.
6) (Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
10
7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed
to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be
given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not
diminish the residential character of the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• No loudspeakers or intercom systems are proposed as part of this project.
• The ATM will only include a keypad tone but will not include advertising or other
miscellaneous sounds.
General Standards: 14-413-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive -through facilities are not expected to substantially increase
vehicular traffic to the site near other commercial uses.
• Vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate drive -through traffic
as long as they conform to the concept plan as submitted. Staff recommends
substantial compliance with the concept plan as a condition of approval.
• While the ATM provides a physical barrier between the drive -through lane and the
parking drive aisle, staff recommends physical barriers such as planter boxes for the
length of the drive -through lane to provide additional separation.
• While there may be additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance
to the parking lot, no new pedestrian conflicts are created by the proposed drive -
through facility and low traffic speeds, good visibility, and clear demarcation of the
pedestrian route helps promote pedestrian safety.
• The proposed drive -through facilities will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive -through facility is compatible with commercial uses at nearby
properties and replaces existing parking spaces which are also an auto -oriented use.
• Screening will mitigate impacts to the streetscape.
• The proposed use is far enough away from nearby businesses where any potential
increase in traffic will not create a negative impact.
• The proposed exception will not injure the use or enjoyment of nearby properties, nor
will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located.
7
FINDINGS:
• The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of commercial
and industrial uses and future redevelopment and improvement will not be affected.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• Sufficient utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are established for this
neighborhood and can meet the proposed site requirements.
• Pedestrian access will be maintained from the right-of-way through the property.
• Proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular and pedestrian access.
• Screening to the S2 standard will be required between the drive -through facility and
Lower Muscatine Road. The existing tree should be incorporated into this screening.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive -through lanes are accessed from internal parking drive aisles.
• Three stacking spaces for vehicles in the drive -through lane is adequate to
accommodate the use. Additional overflow space is available in the parking drive aisle.
• The pavement markings shown on the concept plan, with the addition of the
recommended signage, will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site.
• The proposed facility will not substantially affect congestion on public streets.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
FINDINGS:
• Parking is abundant at 1600 Sycamore Street, so the site maintains compliance with
parking standards despite the loss of 10 spaces.
• Staff will ensure the site design conforms with all other applicable zoning standards
and regulations, including screening requirements, during the site plan review.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as General
Commercial, and the Future Land Use Map of the South District Plan designates this
area as Commercial.
• The Comprehensive Plan supports "encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses".
• The current primary land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive
and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed special exception.
8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0005, to allow a drive -through facility for an ATM at the
property located at 1600 Sycamore Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Installation of a "do not enter" sign at the drive -through lane exit.
2. Additional physical separation between the parking drive aisle and the drive -through lane
by using a curb, planter boxes, or other control devices as approved by the City Engineer.
3. Substantial compliance with the concept plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Correspondence
4. Application Materials
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
01
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21 =0005
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Prepared by Staff
.0 Ape
Alp
40,
t OF
It
40
>00
- i
l
` � 7
•A
r • dt
Fk
>.
ZW
w
dB- �
Af It
40
1�� • � a
Ift
1
�• Ste. •� � - � � ' ,� _ 4. • 1
rt IAL
.
GOdl-
N
.P.
• U t4_4
r I 0.4 O
4( _ 0.4
• - - O 4-J
• � } .
�,• •_ �, 4-4
10
ago
cz
•
a- J
t : •. AM
C�
I
a'
4-4 00
bZ Ln
IL cu
CZ
� cu
cz
_ 4-J
It 1S 32JOIN` OAS - Cz Cz Cz -J
.. -�.
�-, ,
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21 =0005
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Prepared by Staff
AW
•100
'"1111
/ A
11�111►►
d�1�11► � � � g
Ml
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21 =0005
ATTACHMENT 3
Correspondence
Submitted by the Identified Party
From: Taylor Hall
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 20214:53 PM
To: Kirk Lehmann <Kirk-LehmannPiowa-city.org>
Subject: RE: EXC21-0005: 1600 Sycamore ATM
Here is what I was forwarded. Let me know if I should print this out as a PDF and upload to the city portal.
Thank you,
Taylor H.
Message from VP of ATM's at US Bank:
From: Butler, Byron L <byron.butlerPusbank.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:59 PM
To: Julie Yaney <Julie.Yaney(@stratusunlimited.com>; Orth, Matthew H <matthew.orthPusbank.com>; Logan, Robert N
<robert.logan(@usbank.com>; Hanson, Garrett M <garrett.hansonlPusbank.com>; Amey, John D <iohn.amey(@usbanl<.com>; Reichel, Ryan D
<rvan.reichel(@usbank.com>
Cc: Chris Skillin <Chris.Skillin(@stratusunlimited.com>; Joseph McHugh <Joseph. McHugh(@stratusunlimited.com>
Subject: RE: US BANK ATM - IOWA CITY IA, 1660 SYCAMORE ST.
CAUTION: Be aware that this message originated from outside the organization. Do not click on any links or open any attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Below are 5 tables — one per week for the last 5 weeks. This is the best we can do to support this information.
You can see the transaction volume is not something that should be troublesome.
wm* Number
1
Tr4n$Ad[ton Typo
P) wodwal
21 DOPWA
3 NM ire
Approved or Denied
21 o
21 ww
ChtslMM Tnw
a US eM C4JSWMf
❑, FrPr rrCLMOMW
LG ri"TyN
I� -*- P� us Kink Brarhm
U 021 Prefn" - U S Bw*
cWtOWNNIOR
C UP4T'r RANKP4 CANrA
Reclow NNrie
FASSSN 17115a. P&G."
Dkstrhci NarT*
"FL"OAA VAJJXY CHSTWT -
er>rfren Masai ( inbeo
kwa C" Tower fmi I
Terwmal N&me (IDh
J 5 dar.F IMM.1 C4. iovnc
Termrlril Sukte (Srare Code)
�DA)
TNTOW C"
k�Ck
warm Nurmbir
transacton twe
p wv&awal
® Dwmt
NM FnWkr W
1fpohori•d trr Don rod
21
CuM mer Tor
p F:Oi C
LOOPOOP rW
❑p US Bank IkAKh,
® or premise - U.8 BMW
DW+li*a Nord*
It"W NOW
e:,P+ KYWA ft
(ItsuKI
BrW-<h k&" [Nurr> j
{ova �rF7 Tt~il {,44IJ
Tcrmmsl Narrrq 0UM
V Fk fy" ftwa i;&X Towee-r*U
TgKm 1 SWO CS ICOOO
jbaIh,. +
T4nnlrrldl C 4
6DN a 1;1*�
ATM Listing by Volum
Gh* w a 6X.M&m to u dMw 25r F WWW &Rd N * Kr " hrtah40hffi PW ft W&oa
ATM Fvricw .mates d* ir� wv + e or vm mar
TirtrreW ID 9raneft ■ ATM LOOM= ATM FLndwkWy
us am* kwo city
susa7m P301 TV-Xl*$t tns" pA 483
wwa 44y. IA 522 w4W ,
,ATM Listing by Volume
t-Xt Q+ a kxaVW 14 WP' t Il* hr4rn+ry 4r4 IL" " Wder,� Mull' dreAWM" bar OV XS�n
ATM P urcijrl cmiK An rtic karyd a-,i *ff*cn +r or Ire h! rm"
T*refow 10 WWO a AfM t m e w n r ATM FtWbMDMft
US OWhk Wm*
SM371M 0301 f9rFH7e5t InriK" b POO
kM41 C#r, IA 01-fiWI
Transactim Acttvftr H"tmap, by Dzy and Hour ILo al Tirne)
,wc*n wO 6t r* 1•.irsW For 4rm#►s m ct .krM LPPM at w* Pr — ^ E1
I
i
�
1
1
1
i
1
�
�
1 -
1
1
�
1
3 i
11 s 4
10
10 0
f 4 4
1
3
2 !
4 1" 3
$ #
i S
# 4
it 2
2 #
ikE 2 5
4 It
fh 3
3 5 3
2 2
2 4
1 2 10
4 3
a 3
4 11 4
2 2
1
1
+'
1 i
i
1? 3 f
3
2 i
8�
�1
T„e Thu Fn Sal surf Yore
Transaction Activity Heatrrtap, by Darr and Hour (Local Tlrne)
T I_" WKT4r,�4 er4+'g MKIP Fr. -No Fl7L i'Iota!" MEW 0" ee*F1 ff%*P�t 1e—v+3 4M ea
mrtrt{s wd be beroerage W %i- x h n IwATY l.err:rlp or Vw seicked hermnai:sl
TQ# $4 ftd : '5 T4hu'54 Fri W SK 54 31erh " 0" WIG
12 AM
411 1 AM
2AM
3AM
4 AM
6 AN
r AN
9AM
AIM
10 AM
111 AM
12 Pohl
1 PM
2 PH
3PY
4P-M
SPM
sPM
r�
RM
$1M
10 PM
11 PIA
91
66
I
lice wed
11Wr� Flu++blMr
3
Q � �
Trmwacwn Tnw
1YtilwJr�.ra'
per
Hurl Fr a
r4#d ew Oinm-d
APPO
Cuatof:rer Type
Qu CWW1W
Q Fwegn cumw
Lelca114a Tyw
0 U S. &M Brandt
l3R Pmqme - U S Bank
t.�6�Tlr �t
Region 1141 i
aseller. Mani
1CARrtr 5AA %QUEY C STMT
kwm C-tt TOVOK ES1 19301 ?
Teierurel Name I"
u S cant lawn 1b
Tfirrl sml Steve i 5131e Caft1
Tenam I c ery
Inns CAI =
Vke+k Number
i
0 { )-
Tr,pnWc1ign T
U
Non Flrlaw*
A"roved or Denied
j
@O
j
21 K
I
CuslDann Tyff
I Y I US BaM Cu5h4Rfr
Q Fzxerpn cu51or' &
LoOdOn Ty"
U.s. idi�nk iBrarnrh
ON Premise- US Barac
1131VI as Name
CbMMurlaT-r &vdKJN67 CAN-. A
Regkwi Narrrre
Ea,STMN I6T4 APA95N
Dlshna Name
G`` r—&DAA YALLEYOISTWT =
erabnch Flame (hlUmberi
dD"a C;ly Tmmuesfl jM1 i
Terminal Nww (IDE
U 5 ganken,.a Cety 1co;.wresi : _
Terminal Slate (Swe Code)
rya il.i =
Terruirlal OW
AW U sting by Volu me
C kA g- J, I-• 1.01ILM ft narr--w Ara sere phe %pmft ev^ Wea DMO 60 " WAO*n
ATM i uncton exicales ire fawn l and Lff*Dm* rx be lo—
TO"Mm% 1 10 81IF MM Lin ATM Fly
SUSMOS 93-us TgwnCriM lmaW Repo O 1.45
Iowa City. 1A 52240-6601
ATM Listing by Volum
CAO Qn.P WOQM is upasho- UPt Na" M4 W fly SpCqM AM ,irn ran 44 k
:,iM Fug �t•a4rs � #�ma+l �k7 rrrl*L*.�a� yr we lerrtr+a!
Terfnelal la 9reAi& X ATM Lowbm ATM Fundeneigy
US Bmdq Imam
IZ287M M1 T #k 1mq"4 comil
Icwa". LA M1
Transaebon Activity Heatrnap, by Days and Hour (L all Tlmw)
445 -4TT-q-1s Vn4wV 1W Via maw +sure" VeSe+d day Y&MM - w -1401j G
numbers wO be'he nwagc ka krarwft m Wre.LTW 12drg or etic sekdbd ierrrswKs)
Tine 3.11 W*d 5,12 Thu $'13 Frl 5,14 $ae !M$ #aver 516 Mon 5AY
12 AM
IAM
3 .Ali
FAM
IAM
P AM
10AM
11 AM
17 PM
1 PM
2 PM
$w
# PM
5 PM
6 PM
T Pfl
apim
9 PM
10 PM
11 Ril
$°a
�i 75
'r
32
1011111
Tue vied Thy, F n Sat Sun Mon
Transaction Activity Heatmap, :by Day and Hour I Loral Time)
7 daT dXA it weir R5q mpA itotnl Ute *aHiod -day 4khti, rrr.+" Wrmk*>r jpd p*Cbbd
r•r.�+bR'ra •� wic ear �� �hr ifm=Wls n 4� :,iM L�q � the �k+[4'� 1t+m}n�sp
TUt Sw1t9 Wed 5119 Thu S(M Fri 921 Sat5fN Sun:523 #Men SfU
0 AM
IAM
6AM
?AM
9 AIM
0AIKL
10 AM
11 AIM
12 P9
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 Pli
SPM
6 PM
F PM
8 PSI
0PM
10 PM
9�
55 6
Tue Wed Tlru Frr Sal 5urr 11000
wlrglk Number
5
TF&nSat[IOfb Type
p A
10 Fes,
APPFOr
❑p Am
0 '
CIA[D w Type
Us 6ar*: Cush*
Forew Cus;arner
Coeabw TyW
p Us a&*Be
pork •us a
I*m Mama
CCk1JJvtjl'r B&NKM+■GCZdaTR
Region Pfww
E=ST!EAN IG-.°ra REC401Y
NEAnd Name
&anc4 Name jNum0t-I
I*r4 C*F i
Te—inal Rame I IDI
Tefminal 5"We 1 State C t4e1
Terminal Cit-
Thank you again,
.ATM Lasting by Volum
irur-" 10 $raro m ATM Lacadon ATM FUMMON Ky
U.S IUdM
SUSM706 93al TowmUnst Imams a?pYA
IMO alr- I# 57240'j
Tranaactio-n Activity Heatimap. by Darr and Hour (Local Tirne)
"r vkcrements endnq *0 U-e r rt nxeM Aft segp5d dap VA%rn r~ krmnna at se.etlt-c
nui t*- wd W Iha r tinge Por ker.nih n the —17M 1 ribN or *►e ar*ce y IKtrw.ap-i
Tur l.5-25 W d SW Thu SLIT Fn S28 Sal 549 Sun &-30 won 511
1 AM
5AM
4 Ail
r AN
;� AM
$ AM
10 AN
11 rIkM
U PM
1PM
.2PU
7PM
4 pu
5PH
6PM
rpw
aPW
4 PM
to PM
11 PU
40
F n 5,)t 5uLq
IPP
' = MT
May 12, 2021
CITY OF IOWA ITY
RE: Special Exception for 1600 Sycamore Street 410 East Washington Street
lotva City. IwAra 5 2 240 1 8 6
(319) .356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
Dear Property Owner: w"fw. i c ov. o r
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an application submitted by PM Design
Group requesting a special exception to allow a remote drive -through Automated Teller
Machine (ATM) for the property located at 1600 Sycamore Street (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 an public meeting
tentatively scheduled for June 9, 2021 at 5:15 p.m. Because the meeting is subject to
change, check the City of Iowa City's website, www.icqov.org/BOA, /BOA, the week of the
meeting to confirm the meeting agenda.
An electronic meeting, pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8, is being held because a
meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and
safety of Board members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
Details on how to participate in the electronic meeting will be included in the agenda
packet, which will be available at www.icqov.org/BOA /BOA the Monday before the
meeting. Providing comment in person is not an option.
You may also submit written information for consideration to me 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 hi rk-leh man n(@-iowa-cityorg or 319-356-5230 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
Board of Adiustmente9 Freauentiv Asked Questions
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 Et
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 Et 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 F± Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail kirk-lehmannCiowa-
cit .or .
.0 Ape
Alp
40,
t OF
It
40
>00
- i
l
` � 7
•A
r • dt
Fk
>.
ZW
w
dB- �
Af It
40
1�� • � a
Ift
1
�• Ste. •� � - � � ' ,� _ 4. • 1
rt IAL
.
GOdl-
N
.P.
• U t4_4
r I 0.4 O
4( _ 0.4
• - - O 4-J
• � } .
�,• •_ �, 4-4
10
ago
cz
•
a- J
t : •. AM
C�
I
a'
4-4 00
bZ Ln
IL cu
CZ
� cu
cz
_ 4-J
It 1S 32JOIN` OAS - Cz Cz Cz -J
.. -�.
�-, ,
0-= VI '/WD VIIAO�
c �A �T E c
Z� ........
LU C\2 IS INOAVDAS 009 z
Ln
u u
]DVldiD" kUD VAAO�
Lu
zi F5 ...... rIj
u U
< WN :'ON ]NOiS Z ul 2
z 9 LU
LU
be z �Iz7 8 9
-C 0 N NYS Sfl
0 1
ez
'03 '03—
zo
MT
0 al
r - — — — — — — — — — -
I wil.
Ln -
b
4/l
(P. ea
- i ;�: iiii �°�'� �
S2
S2
zq
o
-3TA1N3DMUV'X3HXV"
Z/ 1 9-Z— I I X 4X.:
/A
ow
Y4-6
CL
I
001
-7 -Xi IQ: 0
F-1
rA
"Cb
0
I? Y 2E
-XIXI - I z
IISI I I I 1 4
t
z PL
LU
LL.
.9�
III- --------
0 11 19 z
Qj .... ...
I, ..... .........................
................... I
I
............. ............. I .......
..... .... ............
.......... ............
z
:5
LU
77 '�
Y
Y�Y{�..�z�
trY i
LL}}44 -
�
z
z
S! 4F `r3�
i
++
Z
iN*
au
1G)
0
M
o
R
x
0
C.
wyn.w k t
k ,ty F
Y �p
PRESORTED
:ti
n
FIRST CLASS
..�
jTP
�-
t I �!w
�F
i
Sys �
� ■
YL
is1Tp Y ��
a �
w
�#
girt � JCY
'iK• � �
4
5
Yr.oa.oar
.na.r�r f
Po
Jy
m
AMA
vWa.a}t F
y;
w
y
a
co
N {
Y�� aarJ d'I Iti�YyTa1GSY
� oa �N'numv+M1"#'a+LL'w
U
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC21 =0005
ATTACHMENT 4
Special Exception Application
Submitted by the Applicant
0-�ZZS VI 'AiD V/Y\O�
Z�
LU
h& 1.-
u u
r V� �T E c
01 J�s
�2 I 1� .:
IS INOAVDAS 009
z
0 a
.:
URI
uu
z
a gi Z N
]DV1diDWA AiD V/Y\O�
WN :'ON ]NOis
r, 2
0 0
z
ri fN Lu
Lii F- M,
z
LU
0 2r z
> 9 z 4t
z
2 Ln 2
4 LU
Li z z
-M -W
0
u
N NVS Sfl
..................
0
—T
'03 '03-
-
T—
zo
�,p
0,
64
0
I
r4
ke,
cz, j ol
A/V
Ln
zo
toz t9
e,9- C6�, 0A.
19 --96
b?
S2
..........
I I I I I
t"'t"'t I
r
zq
o
Z/1 9-z-
ATA'1N3DVr0V')G z
0,
.6
CL
0
7 t; 001
0
F-1
I I I I Ilk .1.4 1. z
I I *.Q'
I?
z
0
z
0
b
�-n F,
a-w
10.: 1 1 1 4 1 1 PL ov
t.6
LU
LU
z
>
w
I '194DI I I 4(i�.
.9
LL,
F--j
I
:,:I*
ly
/ll:
X�Xl �IIII7
p
z
Ey ... I:
Es Qj ...
NI I 'I
............
........... I.
...... ........
....... ........ I I I I I I I I I
LU
z
LU
®�ZZS I 'Al D O0
Z
Y
U U
U =
W
�, � �2
-3 �R Z
m u
i
/�
IS ICJ AS 009
������ �I� �° OD
z
o a
y,
L(1
z ®
ru
Z Q
Y
�� � 3
- > � d z ..
®
®/I �V �I ��JJ �L�
Z Q
z
� x
� �
2
Q z
W
� m
$
ug
� YI �
w �
W ®
cq
vi
Z
vi
2
1
1
I
U
1
'
O
Z
O
�
W
W
-
Q
U
-
>;
Z }
Q
LU
z
LU
LU
LU
2
1
1�
a
vi
r
z
� C/7
0 W
Cn S
S L.�
C7
J 0
W
N
_4
u
� H
2
W _U
J
a
U
w
d
7
m
04
CD
�
O
O
U
�
O
CN
F
a CO
o
M D-N
O
M O
m m
co
z
0 LULU
co
NLr)
Fi;
O
�
w ai
v 3
CDO
LL
�
M U_
�
co
J
Q
t0 � W
Z O
J CO W
-�
m
Z
00 Z
00
N
N
Z
a a
U O
u? 0
� M �
C
CEO Q
O
=
Z
M
)
0
W.
Q
J
/
t]
Q
tl
m
z
p
mCD
Z
U
Z
z
>
LU
L
LU
0
�_T�
Pk
DEIGN
Architectural
Solutions Group
From: Taylor Hall, PM Design Group Inc.
Architect: PM Design Group Inc.
1101 S. Central Expy., Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
To: Iowa City — Planning/Zoning
Project: US Bank Remote ATM
1600 Sycamore St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Application: Special Exception Permit
Plan Reviewer(s): Anne Russett, Kirk Lehmann
Submittal: May 7, 2021
Special Exception
Specific Criteria
PM Design Group, Inc.
1101 Central Expressway S. Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
a. Access and Circulation
1. Access to the proposed drive-thru unit via existing parking lot, and will not
restrict street traffic.
2. No curb cuts are proposed.
3. Requesting exception to the minimum four (4) stacking spaces required for
banking facilities. Please reference the provided supplemental document from
client, describing the typical traffic for US Bank ATM's within Iowa City limits.
4. Ground markings on pavement are proposed for "Enter Only", "'Exit Only", and
Directional Arrows.
b. Location
1. Proposed layout orients ATM face to adjacent street (Lower Muscatine Rd), in
order to maximize distance of ATM from ROW and simultaneously provide
curb/median between drive-thru lane and parking lot drive -aisle.
2. Proposed ATM concrete slab is greater than 10'-0"from property line/ROW.
a. Landscape screen proposed on drawings, and client notified of
requirement.
OFFICE LOCATIONS
ROCKLIN, CA • VANCOUVER, WA • PHOENIX, AZ • ALLEN, TX. • SANTA ROSA, CA. • SEAL BEACH, CA • ENGLEWOOD, CO
www.pmdginc.com
C. Design Standards
1. Proposed Drive-thru lane divided from adjacent drive -aisle by ATM curbed
median.
2. Landscape screen proposed on drawings, and client notified of requirement.
3. Multiple window not possible.
4. Drive-thru lane oriented to prevent vehicle/pedestrian traffic conflict.
5. Proposed light pole and fixture to meet city code requirement
6. Not used
7. Proposed ATM shall not produce noise pollution to adjacent area.
End Statement
�_T�
Pk
DESIGN
Architectural
Solutions Group
From: Taylor Hall, PM Design Group Inc.
Architect: PM Design Group Inc.
1101 S. Central Expy., Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
To: Iowa City — Planning/Zoning
Project: US Bank Remote ATM
1600 Sycamore St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Application: Special Exception Permit
Plan Reviewer(s): Anne Russett, Kirk Lehmann
Submittal: May 7, 2021
Special Exception
General Criteria
PM Design Group, Inc.
1101 Central Expressway S. Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
1. Proposed project layout was been designed with the intent to avoid any public
endangerment; utilizing features clear space striping and curb(s) to keep drive-
thru traffic away from surrounding vehicle/pedestrian traffic.
2. The addition of the proposed project should not impair the aesthetic value of
surrounding area/properties. The proposed kiosk to be maintained for
cleanliness and safety. Landscape screen to be provided adjacent to drive-thru
lane and kiosk.
3. The proposed ATM kiosk will supplement surrounding commercial/retail area.
4. The proposed ATM slab shall be offset from adjacent existing parking curb, to
allow for water run-off. Electrical and data to be bored underground to
minimize disturbance of existing features.
5. The proposed layout should not affect traffic congestion.
6. The project has been designed in accordance with specific regulations, as
coordinated with city officials in pre -submittal meeting.
7. The project will comply with all city code and requirement, including
comprehensive plan.
End Statement
OFFICE LOCATIONS
ROCKLIN, CA • VANCOUVER, WA • PHOENIX, AZ • ALLEN, TX. • SANTA ROSA, CA. • SEAL BEACH, CA • ENGLEWOOD, CO
www.pmdginc.com
Taylor Hall
From: Julie Yaney <Julie.Yaney@stratusunlimited.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:57 PM
To: Taylor Hall
Cc: Joseph McHugh
Subject: FW: Iowa City Drive up ATM usage
Hi Taylor,
Please see the information below provided by US Bank for the stacking of the spaces. US Bank is not keen on taking up
so many spaces so the data below shows the traffic flow of other ATM's and hopefully will allow the city to reduce the
number of spaces required. Not sure if it will help but at least its worth a try.
Thank You
Julie Yaney
Construction Project Manager
1701 Golf Road Tower-1
Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008
m: 224-443-3865
stratusunlimited.com
) Str tu 'm
From: Butler, Byron L <byron.butler@usbank.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:24 PM
To: usbankatm <usbankatm@stratusunlimited.com>
Cc: Logan, Robert N <robert.logan@usbank.com>; Orth, Matthew H <matthew.orth@usbank.com>; Josh Wilder
<Josh.Wilder@stratusunlimited.com>
Subject: Iowa City Drive up ATM usage
CAUTION: Be aware that this message originated from outside the organization. Do not click on any links or open any
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
The following Tableau view is from the most recent week of usage at the three Iowa City drive up ATMs. These are all at
branch locations which tend to do higher transaction volumes than off premise ATMs.
The heaviest usage in any given hour is on a Friday afternoon with 12 transactions in an hour. With an average
transaction time of 2 minutes this indicates a very unlikely situation of much of a que or stacking issue at the drive up
ATM. A review of the previous 4 weeks did not show anything different with 12 in an hour being the highest number.
My belief is that stacking more than 2-3 cars is more than would be necessary.
ATM Volume Hourly Heat M a-p
5
T Garr F,a ction TM
0 %yewaWaI
Q a
Appma(I or Dmled
C U s Unmw Tp+r
uM aW* C%AacW
Qftnftn cjjsbxw
Locadw PA*
a U.S ei m ermth
CG1WVir BAhKJF1G CBFFW_ J
Rtgk)in Ffam
._ r ■�
E .; 1T.FAP1 OWa Af 0If)4
D #turk [ N a rm
Wa'r'r5� �I1'I'Y�•! �.
DtWh
-Wens■ INurnW
Im
Tprnwill hl4ini 410j
Tefths; b Gr i S [e COW
Cmirrkap■W40;a$ugM■wWehtatnW PF4wm Ikr4pp3kU■PFOmdMWmni+ W*kmaMn
,%T IW Nu arc + hefioft#* d NF Wre"
Taw" ID
snom 0 ATM 140raw ATM F wb=t�
N1 S QjYbk I Wa Cr 4V
9 3 0
Im mfihn� f trnm e Depodd
idr,a CAV A 5224&43 k1
iI.5 ea" Ims C ft
$VW
0*1 1'ama1 In,ags #
LA!Q 2 1
SUSLm+�
�i
a �'p6m
kwo Cftf.1A 522415-3S26
Byron L Butler
Assistant Vice President I ATM Sales & Strategy Manager
p. 608.252.4083 1 byron.butler(a_usbank.com
U.S. Bank
Capitol Square Madison
1 S Pinckney St, Madison, WI 53703-2802 1 MK-WI-2008 I usbank.com
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
%7
fim
Transaction AcUyfty Hkalmap, by Day and r
rftjMMWMW4 e-. *P we Pe 1N%PA I f r wW*C F Y~ &AV
MW �.jg :�'A Ma X) I %§ An Fti V j
12AM
tAM
2AN
3AM
4AN
5AN
45AM
xAM
:2 AM
JAM
1.0 AM
IIAM
WPM
1 I'ril
PrA
1 GM
4 PM
5 �P"��
7 PM
2 P"
-9 PM
1n PM
11 PA
2V
ifa
Tor V%d Tho
MW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered
by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the
intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing,
or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have
received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
2
_411
IN
■ i ■
LM I Rill
=Phil
Ab
Id
r
L _r
1�
-�
RAM '
t 95-
r -
r .
r �
MK
1
a �I
-
1
01
' L
FAL
� T f L { t
VL
' Y • jr ' •6!' Ia
r -• ■1
r. br
J _ r f •,■+ , = -�
- - ■ -
T1 r {+ L
{ !* 1
} •a _ y g! .%. Jam,
' . S •ti f .-L ' i
JWA IF
# J�
. jp'� I
ti L ? !
ti
IL
r.
99 PP
ti ~
1
1
�■
` MF
.. 'ti
A AM
all Ww.-
M� ; � s •' -
u -1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij I a. IL
.r
RZO
■ �� _
owl Ve
a I P fill
� r
�■; ■ ■���
~l • T % -elms Im mill 11111MEAN Law
mill
76�
■ 1 t
lip.
RAW ��.
wr gain �. ■
I id ' NO .
O
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
O
r-I
m
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
m
r-I
r-I
00
m
O
O
O
O
r-I
00
O
r-I
O rn
m
m
M
M
M
m
mR::I-
m
m
m
mR::Il
o
M
m�R:zl-
m
M
m
r-I
mR::I-
l0
lO
M q::I-
O
m
m
m
m
0
0
0
m
m
m
m
0::1-
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
r-I
0
0
0
O
O O
l0
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
l0
l0
l0
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
lD
N
Ln
l0
lD
lD
lD
l0
l0
Cn
l0
l0
lD
l0
l0 l0
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
qt
qt
qt
R;T
R:I-
R:I-
lzt
R::I-
R::I-
R::I-
�
�
q;l-
qt
�
qt
qt
qt
qt
qt
qt
qt
�
lqt Rzt
Q
(V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
• N
N
N
N
N
(V
(V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln Ln
a)
Ln
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
a
-
s a
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0
U U U U U U U U om U w w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a
w w w w w w w w w w w p w w w LU LU w
+� U U V U}} U U U U U U U U U U U
J J J J J J J J J J
� DC DC DC DC DC OC OC DC DC DC OC a OC DC LL LL DC DC
CL O O O O a aC)- O O O OC)- O O CL CL m a CL CL a- a w LU a a
LIn cn 2 2 2 2 cn Ln v) 2 = 2 2 V) 2 2 cn cn cn cn cn V) cn cn 0 0 cn cn
00 00 q�t l0 m q;T Kt CY) O N � r-i Ln lD O a) m N O lD O N m Ln Ln lD �
rl m mq;T Ln rl rl rl K:3- M� lD rl N r-I N N N m N 00 O O rl N O O
Ln 00 m 00 00 Ln lD Ln 00 00 m m Ln 00 lD l0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln l0 l0 � lD Ln Ln
� r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I rl r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I rl rl r-I r-I r-I r-I rl rl r-I r-I r-I
O
0~C w 2
LU r)m Q 0 oQC
Z w w 2 C�
LU J U oC V)U
� 0 w O Z0
w a LU J w Q 0 < ~ a °C 0 a
m w O Z w Z 0 = oC Q m w U 0 Q z O w Q U 2 2
a m z J J aLU C)r a m m J ~ W
0 Z J oc 2 w Z °C _ . w H O '-'-! Imo, W cr-0 LU Ow cn O 2
a co V) oC 0 C� J O � w U H w Z
Z = = Z Q O z w J (D Lar-u J Z = a m ~ 0
LU 1 J Z (n
N O O Q °C � J a� Z w w w CO U D LU
LU O U Q O = w
~ vi V) w N ' cri w oC �C a w 0 J °� = Co LU a LU N U
Q cn LU Q Q U Z w cn a- U � Q Z 0 oZC Q J �_ O J Z
O O U P c 0 w °C O w O w 0 a oC U w a 0— 2 w a
O V) w U m Ln Q 2�� U O E Ln = tY 0 m z v) 2i Q cVi) oc = Ln 0 LL U LL w
Ln r1 O q;T lD q;l- N M N M M M r1 00 r-I r-I � l0 00 I� � m r-I r-I r-I N N
O N N N N O O O N r1 N N O O r1 O O r-I O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 N qt l0 w l0 l0 qt M l0 N r-I qt w w lD m l0 m l0 � l0 lqt
00 N N N N 00 O 00 N N N N 00 O N O O 00 00 00 00 Ln 00 00 00 00 00 00
M r1 r1 r1 r1 M N M r1 r-I r1 r1 M N r1 N N M M M M M M M M M M
� m M M M::I- M;:I- M M M m::I- M M M M����I;t qt
r1 N N N N r1 N r1 N N N N r1 N N N N r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r1 r1 rl
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r1 r1 r1 r1 r i r1 r1 r1 r1 r-I r1 r1 r1 r1 r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I rl r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I
s`
o m
o
0
0
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
o
o
R::I-
0
r-I
ry)
M 00
MI:zl-
cV
O
cV
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
r-I
O
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
�
r-I
r-I
O
r-I
r-I
O
O r-I
IQO (.o
QO
M
kO
M
M
m
M
N
m
m
1.0
m
M
t.O
QO m
N
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N N
(V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
fV (V
N
N
N
N
(V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
m 00
N
rn r-I
O O
O
O mm
m m
M
m �O
0 0
0
0 0
N N
N
N N
N N
N
N N
Ln Ln
Ln
Ln Ln
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- U U
U
U
U
U
U
U
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U
-
U
-
U
-
U
-
U
-
U
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aaa
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
cr-
Qr-
c
w
w
w
w
w
z
z
z
z
z
cr-
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
U
U
U
U
U
W
a
wLU
aaa
a
a
0
0
�
V)
V)
V)
�
V) V)oC
H
LI)w
H
oC
H
H
H
H
H
O
O
Ln
w w
U U
O
w
oC
O
�
DC
w
OC
w
OC
w
DC
O
�
w
OC
w
OC
w
DC
w
w
w��
OC
w
W
U
a
0
a
0
O
O
O
a
0
0
0
0
O
o
O
o
O
w
w
w
w
w
D
ac oc
U
w
U
w
w
w
w
v
w
w
w
w
w
oc
>-
w>-
w
w
w
w
>-
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
O
O
O
O
O
Cl.
V) V)
V)
0
V)
0
0
0
0
V)
0
0
0
0
0
co
m
J
J
J
J
J
V)
O r-i
(10
00
O
u)
0)
Ln
r-i
�
�
(N
�
N
M
m
0)
O
u)
O
N
r-I
lD
r-I r-i
N
O
M
N
r-I
r-I
r-i
N
O
O
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-I
O
(M
N
r-I
M
N
O
un un
9:4-
m
q;T
00
00
00
00
Ln
00
00
I�
00
00
lD
(.0
al
00
0)
00
�l
l0
r-I r-I
r-I
r-I
z
J
J
a
J
J
w
z
w
z
a
�
a
W
a
oc
z
Q
cn
w
Z
w
a
oc
�
o
a
O
oc
Q
Q
O
z
w
zQ
U
a
Z
a
LWL
J
V)
LU
Z
J
1
Z
V)
D
V)
D
J
V)
0
O
Z
a
Q
I<
U)
O�
Z
a
w
n
0
I
}
0
a
W
0
J
m
.
OrfW
�
Z
O
J
w
z
(n
�
a
c
c
OC
W
�
J
DC
W
O
m
�
Q
O
o
z
~
U
z
~
O
Q
J
w
cr-
a
Y
0
w
Q
0 �
O
w
�
�_
N
W
=wJ
°
1
°
°I
W
zoo
��zJJ��wa'zua
Ur a
J
U
Z
J
z
z
O
Z
J
J
V'
J
W
J
O
J
O
J
w
Z
a>
O
Q
o
°C
a
Q
0
a
s
a
cn
Ln
v
O
w
J
0
0
2
0
U
w
w
rn
0
2
�
0)
cn
O Q
V) Z
2
oc
O_
DC
a
>
a
J
w
V)
0
2i
m
m
r-I
V)
r—I
O
m
2i CD
M M::I-
00
Ln
r-i
N
M
Lr)
l0
I�
t0
m
m
::I-
M�
Lr)
::I-
Ln
I_f)
M
N
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-i
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-I
O
O
O
r-I
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
l0 R:t
Ln
Ln
Ln
l0
(.0
l0
w
I�
Ln
Ln
w
Ln
l0
N
N
01
00
Lr)
00
r-I
I_f)
w
00 00
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Lr)
Lr)
Lr)
Ln
Ln
Ln�
Ln
B
O
O
Lr)
Ln
Lr)
U)
Lr)
O
00
m Mq*
q*qt
�qt
m::I-
9t
N
N
qt
r-I
M
qt q*
q*qt
q*
q*
qt
qt
qt
qt�I�t
qt
M
M
qt
�
qt
m
::I-
r-i r-I
r1
r1
r1
r1
r1
r1
r1
r-i
r1
r1
r1
r1
r1
CV
CV
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-I r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-I
r-I
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-I
r-i
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
00 m
�o
00
(o
(10
Qo
(.o
(o
t.o
00
�
�
�-o
(.o
Qo
k-o
�.o
Qo
k.0
(Z
Q0
Q0 �o
O O
m
O
m
m
m
m
m
m
O��
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
r-I r-I
0
r-I
0
O
O
O
O
O
r-I
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O O
m m
t�o
m
�o
k.o
k.o
k.o
k.o
k.o
m
k.o
k.o
k.o
k.o
W
W
W
w
k.0
w
w
w w
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
(V N
N
(V
(V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
a a s a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s a a a a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
U
-
U
U
U
U-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U
-
-
-
-
U
a
a
s
a
s
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oc
0
oc
0
oc
0
oc
m
LU
z_
LU
z_
LU
z
_
z
_
`Y
a
m
ors
a
a
00
N
a
Lr)
to
I�
w
m
a
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
r-I
N
N
m
N
N
Ln
N
Q0
N
U
U
w
U
w
w
w
w
w
w
U
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
LU
LU
w
w
w
w
D
D
V)
D
c/)
V)
V)
cn
V)
V)
D
cn
V)
V)
V)
cn
cn
cn
c/)
c/)
cn
c/)
V)
V)
2
w
>
2
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
LU
>
LU
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
w
>
LU
LU
a
LU
s
a
a
a
a
a
LU
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
a
a
3:
3:
(A
3:
L/)
V)
Ln
Ln
(A
(A
3:
Ln
V)
Ln
Ln
Ln
V)
V)
Ln
L/)
Ln
Ln
V)
V)
0
o
r-i
0
r-I
r-I
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-I
0
r-i
r-I
r-i
r-i
r-I
r-i
r-i
r-I
r l
r l
r l
r-i
r-I
J
J
V)
J
(n
V)
V)
V)
V)
V)
J
V)
Vi
Vi
Vi
to
V)
Vi
Vi
L/)
V)
V)
V)
to
O
�
r-I
m
O
O
Lr) �
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
rn
r-I
00
r-I
�
r-I
rn
r-I
�
r-I
�
r-I
�
r-i
�
r-i
n
r-I
�
r-I
m
r-i
�
r-i
�
n
�
�
�
n
�
�
�
�
�
�
LU
z
z
oc
z
=
LU
a
0
z
a
J
ci
L.L
J
J
LU
�
W
m
0
�
z
>C
O
")
Z
a
a
J
U
J���
J
J
J
J
J
°
V)
w
�
La
w
°
O
V)
w
�
w
>
V
J
a>->-°
to
Z
J
Q
LL
LU
LUOr-
�
w
Z
Z
0
�
0
�
0
�
O
�
'�
0
w>-
W
w
J
w
n-
U
J
o
z
LL
L
L
Z
w
°
a
a
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
J
0�
z
°
z<
J
-1
<<
QI��
a
ww���
aaa
a
Qom
�
Ln
ao
cn�z
z
1
3:
/1
O
=
�V�V)�
LL
z
`—
z
`—
°�mm��V)
/1
�L
1
1
1
1
1
V)
1
oz
w
LU
a�
Nza
oC U
D—
w
�
a-
oC
~
�L
D
�L
D��
�
Z
J
w
O
O
1
z
1�
z
z
�
z
~
Z
z
w
z
Z
z—
o
O J
a J
z
oc
F—
m
0
cn
o
U
a
a
oc
°c
a
w
m
m
0
U
0
U
a
F—
a
F—
a
F—
a
F—
Z
D
w=
o
—
a
F
w
oc
m
0
M
O
l0
r-I
00
N
::Im
O
O
Lr)
O
l0
O
�
O
00
O
m
O
N
O
r-I
O
N
O
m
O
O
r-I
r-I
r-I
N
r-I
m
r-I
�
r-I
N
N
m�
N
N
Ln
N
t0
N
O
00
O
V>
O
m
O
00
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
R:zl-
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
00
qt
Lr)
�
O
r1
00
q:t
O
r1
O
r1
O
r1
O
r1
O
r1
O
r1
O
r-I
O
r1
O
r-I
O
rml
O
r-I
O
rml
O
rml
O
r-I
O
rml
O
r-I
O
r l
O
r l
O
r-I
O
r-I
qt
r-I
R:t
r-I
m
CV
R:t
r-I
m
CV
cM
CV
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
CV
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
rmi
O
rmi
O
rml
O
rml
O
rml
O
ri
O
rl
O
rl
O
rl
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
�o (o
�o
�o
(o
�o
�o
m m
m
0
m
m
m O
O O
O
O
O
O
O ::1-
k.O l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
110 (-I
N
O O
O
O
O
O
O
N N
N
N
N
N
N
fV (V
N
N
(V
N
N
Ln Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
rl
�
�D
qz:l-
cm
rl Ln
cV 0
O
m
Rt
O
O
O O
O -c:i-
rl
O
O
i:l-
r-I
rl rl
l0 (�I
m
l0
l0
(V
m
m m
N
N
O Ln
O
O
O
Ln
O
O O
qt
qt
qt
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln Ln
a a a a a a a a a s a s a s a s a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U U
U
U
U
U
U U
a a
a
a
a
a
a a
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
p
Or-
z
a)
00
a)
O
rl F-
ri N
rl
rl
N
N
U
w w
w
w
w
w
V) V)
UO
V)
UO
V) D
a a
a
a
a
a
a
a
LU
c~
Ln
cn
Ln
Ln
cn
r-i
r-i
�
�
Ul)
Ul)
U*I)
Ul)
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
� r�
r�
�
r�
�
�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
U U
U
U
U
U
U
U U
a s
a
s
a
s
a
s a
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
p
p
p
cr-
Qr-
ck�
W
W
W
z
z
z
a
U
V)
N
W
a
U
cn
W a
> U
U0
O
p
UJ
>- 2i
w-j
�
O
>
a
V)
rl
UO
O
2E
U
>-
p
J
�
2
w
�
O
w
w
O
O
0
0
0
0�
�
oQ0
Ln
a)���n
00
00 00
r-i
r-i
r-i
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I r-I
w
z
O
O D
J
J
cr-
u
z
a
�c
w
a
Y
p
W
°C
D-
O~
LL
w.-I
z
0—
J
0
0-
J
J
v
J
U
o
D-
m
—0
wO
J
w
w
O
oc
0
U
o a
o
0
oC
p
Q
cn
0-
Z
p
p
LU
cn
O
Ln
Z
0
~
Q>
,~
V)
`�'
oc
z
w�
J
Q
U
U
J
J
J
w�
w
w
�7
0-~
v)
lw
D
z
w
_
Q_
w
z�
a
Q
p oC
Z
Z
Z
J=
O>
O
J
w
w
W
O
U
p
W
O
J
V)
W
or_
N>-
J
z
J O
m
z>
W
O
2
O
oC
Z
O
p
p
u
Z W
W
Z
w
a—i
m
o
o
Ln
m
U
uU
2
oC
p
U
Ln
2
I� al
00
to
al
O
rl
m
00
m
Ln
I�
I�
N
Ol N
rl N
rl
O
rl
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
rl
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
m m
m
�o
m
m
m
Ln
(.o
O
Lr)
m
�
O
Ln
w �
O O
O
w
O
O
O
O
Ln
00
O
O
Ln
00
Ln
Ln Ln
r
r
r-i
r-I
�
m m
m
m
m
m
m
q
m
m
qt
N CV
CV
rl
CV
CV
CV
CV
rl
rl
CV
N
rl
rl
rl
rl rl
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
PVA
ML
DESIGN
Architectural
Solutions Group
From: Taylor Hall, PM Design Group Inc.
Architect: PM Design Group Inc.
1101 S. Central Expy., Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
To: Iowa City — Planning/Zoning
Project: US Bank Remote ATM
1600 Sycamore St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Application: Special Exception Permit
Plan Reviewer(s): Anne Russett, Kirk Lehmann
Submittal: April 13, 2021
Special Exception
Legal Description
PM Design Group, Inc.
1101 Central Expressway S. Suite 100
Allen, TX 75013
MALL 1ST ADDITION LOTS 21 31 41 & 7 & PART OF LOTS 5 & 6 & INCL THAT PART OF
SW SE 14-79-6 & NW NE 23-79-6 AS DESC IN BK 849 PG 296 EXC THAT LAND
CONDEMNED BY CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR LOWER MUSCATINE ROAD ROW IN BK 5002
PG 812
End Statement
OFFICE LOCATIONS
ROCKLIN, CA . VANCOUVER, WA . PHOENIX, AZ . ALLEN, TX. . SANTA ROSA, CA. . SEAL BEACH, CA . ENGLEWOOD, CO
www.pmdginc.com
June 9, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
April 14, 2021
Prepared by Staff
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
AP RI L 14, 2021 — 5:15 PM
PRELIMINARY
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible
or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission
members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Zephan Hazell, Bryce Parker,
Amy Pretorius
REPLACEMENT MEMBER: Ernie Cox
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Danielle Sitzman
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Grant Lientz, City Attorney from North Liberty
OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Clark, Allison Wagner, Andy Litton, Brian Richards, Darlene
Clausen, Dave Moore, Diana Harris, Dorothy Fowles, Don Fowles,
Drew Jones, James Larew, Lee Dreier, Linda McGuire, Maeve
Clark, Michael Apt, Michael Welch, Richard Blazk, Sharon
Degraw, Rachel Harris, Michael Oliveira
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:20 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.
APPEAL ITEM APL21-0001:
An appeal of a decision by the Building Official to grant a minor modification (MOD20-0009)
reducing the side setbacks to build a new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street:
alleging an error in the determination that all applicable approval criteria were met.
Hazell stated he will recuse himself from this case due to a past interaction both with the
property and with Prestige.
Lehmann noted former Board of Adjustment member Ernie Cox has been appointed as a
temporary replacement for this item so there will be five members of the Board for this appeal.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 2 of 27
Lehmann began the staff report with a brief introduction to appeals and the Board's role in
making a decision. This is an appeal alleging an error in the building official's decision to grant a
minor modification that reduces the side setbacks at 319 North Van Buren. Regarding appeals
for alleged errors, the Board of Adjustment hears and decides on administrative orders,
requirements, decisions, or determinations as staff enforces and implements the zoning code. In
this case, the formal decision that the building official made is what is being appealed. As a
quasi-judicial body, the Board's decision is binding on all parties unless overturned on appeal to
the District Court. The Board of Adjustment for this appeal may affirm, reverse or modify in
whole or in part the appealed order, requirement, decision or determination. So based on the
facts presented tonight, in the agenda packet, and in any public input, the Board must determine
one of the following; that staff did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established
by law. In this case, that law is the City Code which was used to make the decision and
Sitzman will cover how minor modifications work in the City in more detail. The second is that
the decision was arbitrary or capricious. Those are really the two standards by which the Board
can overturn an appeal. The appellant will speak as to their provided materials as to why they
think that decision was an error, but the Board must review everything and make a decision.
Sitzman introduced herself as the Development Services Coordinator for the City and the acting
Building Official on this case. She began her report showing the location of the subject property
noting the property is an existing vacant non -conforming lot of about 2800 square feet. It is part
of the original town plat of Iowa City and is currently zoned Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12) and is outside of any historic preservation or conservation district. It's also
not in the Central Planning District. Sitzman next gave a brief overview of minor modifications.
Minor modifications are on a continuum of complexity and authority, ranging from decisions that
are truly administrative and only subject to staff review all the way to things that are more
legislative and are determined by City Council. So in that continuum of decisions, on the far end
are truly administrative or the day-to-day activities of staff which are undertaken to administer
permits. Staff is constantly checking ordinances to make sure compliance is met. These tend to
be simple things like permits and uses that are spelled out in the City's ordinances. The next
step up in in complexity from that is where she would place minor modifications, they are still an
administrative process, meaning they're overseen by staff, but they blend a few features of
things that tend towards more legislative actions such as requiring notice to neighbors, a
hearing, and some other things. The decisions that are made are based on criteria in the Code
and are similar to special exceptions this body frequently makes decisions on. On the far end of
that spectrum are things enacted by City Council legislatively through their recommended
process such as by having the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation first.
Sitzman reiterated that the Zoning Code gives staff authority to grant minor modifications and
there's a specific list of 23 standards that can be modified in this way. Staff is also limited in the
degree of change that's allowed, whether it's a measurement based on feet or percentage of
reduction or, in some cases, numbers of people that are subject to a particular use. This is
intended to provide flexibility for unusual situations in which the strict application is impractical.
Sitzman stated in this case the criteria needed to be reviewed by conducting an administrative
hearing and presenting written notice in a certain timeframe to surrounding property owners.
Finally, kind of peculiar to minor modifications, the Code does not set precedent, each minor
modification is unique and may involve other staff depending on which of the 23 standards is
considered, sometimes it also includes the staff design review committee, the department
director, others in development services, or even the city engineer
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 3 of 27
Sitzman stated specific to this particular minor modification the property owner applied for a
reduction in the required side setbacks along the north property line by two feet and along the
south property line by one foot and that is one of those 23 allowable requests for minor
modification, it is number seven on the list in the Code and allows required setbacks from a side
lot line to be reduced up to two feet, but in no case shall a required setback from a side lot line
be reduced to less than three feet.
This request was to accommodate construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on
the subject property. The required setbacks are normally five feet for the first two stories of the
building and an additional two feet for each additional story above that and the overall height
limit on structures in this particular zoning district is 35 feet, regardless of the number of stories.
So, the applicant was requesting a reduction from the seven -foot side setback requirement to
five feet on the north side of the property and six feet on the south side of the property in order
to build a three-story dwelling. Sitzman noted other than those standards in the zoning code
related to dimensional requirements, this property is not subject to other special design
standards for single-family homes because it's not in an historic district and it's not in another
district with additional design requirements, it is simply the same as any other single-family
home throughout the City.
Sitzman stated there are five criteria that staff uses to review minor modifications. The first
criterion is there has to be a special circumstance, such as size, shape, topography, location, or
something that qualifies a special circumstance or an unusual situation. In this case, this is a
non -conforming lot, so it is special in that it's quite small. In addition, the request to build new
on an old block is an unusual circumstance. It is called infill and typically infill projects have
many challenges because the standards change over time, the desires and what is built for the
sizes of houses and the things people want in their houses change over time. In this
circumstance it's a very old lot and this new house would be the newest building in that area
and newly constructed single-family homes commonly built today have features that just weren't
even imagined at the time that this lot might have been platted. For example, it seems odd but a
garage for an automobile was not necessarily in anybody's thinking at the time of this platting,
also indoor plumbing and the sizing of fixtures today are quite different.
Sitzman noted the property is bounded by E. Davenport, N. Van Buren, E. Bloomington and N.
Gilbert Streets so staff looked at properties across Van Buren and Davenport Streets and that
info was included in the agenda packet. A quick snap of the assessor's exterior images and the
addresses were looked at when this particular property was considered for the second criterion,
and Sitzman felt that the minor modification will not be worse than the base standards for being
detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. In this instance there is an alley access for the
subject property that is similar to existing development in this area. Light, air and opportunities
for privacy will be maintained through other dimensional standards that would still apply to this
and there is an inherent limit on the extent of a reduction allowed by a minor modification.
Sitzman thinks the intention of putting those hard limits on how much modification can be made
illustrates the fact that it's intended to be truly minor. Additionally, there was no assumption
made about other properties making up the difference, for example, if the house adjacent to the
subject property had a larger than usual setback, that was not taken into account because what
happens on adjacent properties is not something they wanted to assume as it affects what could
happen here, everything was considered with regards to this property by itself. In the context of
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 4 of 27
the block, Sitzman observed typical two- and three-story buildings present in the surrounding
vicinity, buildings maybe up to 35 feet in height, regardless of the number of stories, in the
surrounding districts so the height of the building was really not part of that consideration.
Sitzman stated the third criterion is if it meets the limits of the minor modification, and yes, the
requested modification is less than or equal to the amount allowed. It also retains the minimum
spacing dimension necessary to accommodate the change. Sitzman also noted this is the only
modification this applicant requested, applicants could potentially ask for more than one minor
modification to accommodate development and that has been seen in several applications in
recent years with three or four minor modifications necessary to accommodate a development.
Lastly, there was no condition place by staff on this applicant.
The fourth criterion is looking at the conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified. Sitzman noted in this case, setbacks are defined in the Code and she explained those
in her memo and previously noted there is an inherent limit on the extent of the reduction that
can be granted by minor modification. The intent of that is to preserve setbacks so they're not
entirely waving the setback, just reducing it from the amount that's allowed by Code.
The final criterion states the requested minor medication is required to meet all other standards.
that the only thing being waived is the minor modification requested.
Lehmann stated staff received five public comments, three of which were included in the revised
packet that he sent out yesterday (Carew, Dreier and Freerks —all in support of the appellant)
and then two more were received today from Clark which appear to include the same content
with slightly different formatting. The Clark messages were also in support of the appellant.
Chrischilles noted on the decision made by the building official, it said the subject property does
not meet current zoning standards for lot frontage or minimum lot area but single-family uses
are considered conforming and may still be established on such a lot of record. He asked
Sitzman to explain that. Sitzman explained there's another section of the zoning code relating to
nonconformities which are things that met the Code at the time they were constructed or platted
but as the Code changed, they became non -conforming. That is the relevant section relating to
a lot of those different circumstances. In the case of single-family homes, there's a bit of a pass
that allows a single-family use to have more leeway to be developed under nonconforming
circumstances than many other things. Sitzman stated this lot is non -conforming, it's a legal
non -conforming lot for the use of single-family development. The lot does not meet current
standards for lot area or lot width, but it does meet the current standards for lot frontage.
Cox understands that this lot is currently owned by Prestige Properties and they intend to
construct the proposed building and sell it to Dr. and Dr. Richards to be a single-family dwelling.
Sitzman confirmed that is their understanding, Prestige Properties is the current owner
requesting the minor modification and is a representative of potential future owners.
Cox asked if there is a requirement on Prestige that this property is sold as a single-family
home. Sitzman stated the requirements that the City has for uses are based on the zoning
district in which it is located, regardless of ownership, so in this zone, single-family detached
structures are what they would expect to be built at this location.
Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) first wanted to thank the Board of Adjustment for hearing
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 5 of 27
the grounds of their appeal today, he is one of a group of co -appellants that submitted the
appeal. All the appellants live within 200 feet of the lot. They include Andy Litton, Don and
Dorothy Fowles, Darlene Clausen and Sean Colbert. Moore noted his name is on the
application because it had to be signed electronically, and he was the only signed appellant.
Moore stated their grounds for appeal has been a group effort and included assistance from
other neighbors who worked together studying the Code and compiling data. He wants to
assure the Board the appeal by this group is only about the Zoning Code and the criteria that
must be met to grant a minor modification, the appeal has nothing to do with issues relating to
student rentals or speculation about the occupancy of the home, and nothing to do with details
about the historic architecture. He acknowledged some of the letters from the January 14
hearing may have strayed into territory outside of the criteria for the minor modification, but the
majority spoke to issues pertaining to the criteria at hand. Regardless of these letters, or any
other letters that may have come in since, they want to be clear that their appeal has nothing to
do with who will own or occupy this property and it's only about the pertinent criteria. He would
like to mention, however, that every single owner -occupied household within 200 feet wrote a
letter in opposition and there were even some rental property owners that objected and there
were no letters in support other than the letter from a lawyer for Prestige Properties.
Moore stated there are five criteria that must be met for a modification or waiver to be granted,
and they want to emphasize that every single one of those criteria has to be met. If even one of
those criteria is not met, the decision of the building official has to be reversed. Moore contends
the application from Prestige Property has failed to meet criteria one, two and four and the
building official made an error in her January 14 decision approving the minor modification.
Beginning with criteria one, Moore noted it states special circumstances must apply to the
property which makes it impractical to comply with the required setbacks. Moore stated the lot at
319 North Van Buren is a clean slate, the zoning rules were known to the owner going in, and
as they demonstrated in their appeal document, it is practical to design a reasonably sized
house on the lot that conforms with the setbacks and height requirements. Prestige asserts and
the building official concurs that the circumstances of the lot make application of the side yard
setback requirements, as written in Sitzman's first decision, "impractical, with respect to the
construction of a single-family home desirable to a modern-day homeowner". Moore noted in
the letter from Prestige's lawyer there's a sentence asserting that it is nearly impossible to
accommodate the needs of a modern-day homeowner that has a need for more square footage
and attached garages, the lawyer uses the phrase modern-day homeowner multiple times. The
implication is that if this desired building is not built on this site, that isn't going to be practical
because it doesn't meet the needs of a modern-day homeowner. Moore asserts statements like
this are about something that is desired on this lot, not at all about what is practical. There are
plenty of people all over the north side who are homeowners that don't wake up in the morning
broken hearted because they don't live in an approximately 2700 square foot home that has four
bedrooms, four baths and three parking stalls. Moore points out this small lot may create
challenges for development, but it does not deny an opportunity to build a desirable house
consistent in size, scale, and the amenities, while still conforming to the existing zoning
regulations. The justification that it must fit the needs of a modern-day homeowner is incorrect
for two reasons. The phrase itself used as a justification is incredibly subjective and what it
really expresses is a desire. Second, and this is a big one, there are modern homes being built
all over the City that are smaller than this three-story 2700 square feet four -bedroom house that
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 6 of 27
would fit into this lot and would fit the zoning code. Moore showed some designs of houses that
would fit on the lot. The first was a 1120 square -foot, two-story house which would meet all
setback requirements and with just a partially finished basement, the house would end up with
approximately 2500 square feet of living area plus a two -car attached garage. That house would
be larger than the average single-family house in the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization
(RNS-12) zone that 319 North Van Buren is in. The average house in that zone is 1538 square
feet. Moore next showed Appendix A from the Appeal, a chart which includes data from the City
Assessor's page on the 171 single family properties located within the north side RNS-12 zone.
Prestige Property wants to put an approximately 2700 square foot house on a 2800 square foot
lot, the average size of a single-family dwelling here is 1538 square feet, and the average lot
size is 5007 square feet, nearly double the size of 319 North Van Buren and not one lot has a
three-story house. They found seven lots that could be considered two and a half story houses
and also on this chart there are some non -conforming lots that are approximately like the one
that Prestige has, but what Prestige wants to build is a 2700 square feet house and it's just too
big of a house for the lot, not one of these other non -conforming lots have a three car covered
parking space, some have one and some have two, but three seems unreasonable for such a
small lot. Moore stated they feel the building official was mistaken saying that it is impractical to
comply with the zoning code because so many houses could be built here. Criterion one
necessary for approval of a minor modification has not been met.
Andy Litton (owner of properties at 323 and 331 North Van Buren Street) noted there are
several non -conforming lots, and houses that fit into these small lots, on the north side and
noted Prestige Properties proposes to build a 2700 square foot home with three covered
parking spaces, and that is just too large for that lot. The resulting building will be out of scale
with the neighborhood. The decision of the building official made the case that it is impractical to
develop this lot with a reasonably sized house and adhere to the zoning code, and to think a two
story, two car garage and over 2000 square feet could fit without any special treatment. To
justify approving the minor modification, the building official responded in an April 9 memo that
"newly constructed single-family homes are commonly built with attached garages for
automobiles and room sizes that accommodate modern amenities such as closets and full-size
plumbing fixtures". Litton stated they looked at newer neighborhoods like the Peninsula,
Churchill Meadows, Country Club Estates on the westside and Whispering Meadows, and their
lots of 3500 to 5000 square feet have modern homes with two car garage and are well under
2000 square feet of above ground floor area, some have basements, most have two car
garages, some have one car. Prestige argues that a modern house would require over 2000
square feet and three covered parking spaces but Litton has shown that there are new houses
being built and sold throughout Iowa City that are smaller than what is proposed and these
houses would better fit the small lot in the neighborhood as intended by the Zoning Code.
Moore continued by noting the buildings official's decision states that the modification granted
"represents the minimum dimension needed to accommodate the proposed development",
Moore noted the term proposed development appears to suggest that the site should submit to
the house design and not the other way around, and what Prestige wants to do needs a larger
lot. It seems their request and the official's decision focuses on unusual situations that are
applicable to the desired design of this house, not the property itself. It is a design that makes
the stricter application impractical, but the zoning language for minor modifications is for
situations relative to the property. What is proposed is just too much house for the lot and
Prestige and the building official have failed to make the case that it is impractical to develop
this lot with a reasonably sized house and adhere to the zoning code.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 7 of 27
Moore next discussed criteria two and four. Criterion two is "a minor modification will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to the other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located" and criterion four is
"the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purposes of the regulation
modified". Moore acknowledged it took him a while to figure out criterion four and how these
two criteria are directly linked to each other, but the misuse of the intent of criterion four can
lead to consequences which are the detriments mentioned in criterion two. Moore stated he and
his wife have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years and were once the youngest family
and now may be the oldest. They have been looking out their windows at a relatively open sky
for a long time. He understands that doesn't give them any special privileges, but it does give
them a certain degree of loyalty to the best interests of the neighborhood. He also
acknowledged he had no idea about the zoning code before this letter came in the mail last
December, or about a minor modification and it seemed like such a small thing, a foot here, but
he sensed shortly afterwards that no matter what they call it, it wasn't anything minor, this was a
majorly big building and a major change in the north side, and, possibly, a major precedent.
Moore stated anything that could cause such an uproar among everybody in the neighborhood
who saw the designs couldn't be minor, it was major, so he went to try to figure out the code.
Sean Colbert, probably the youngest homeowner in the neighborhood, helped Moore
understand this code. To quote from Colbert's letter, "14-413-1 states that the minor
modifications requested shall be in conformity with the intent and purposes of the regulation
modified. The regulation to be modified is contained within 14-2A-4, which presents five
purposes of minimum setbacks, which include: reflect the general building scale and placement
of structures in the city's neighborhoods; provide flexibility to site to building so that is
compatible with buildings in vicinity"; and then in regards to the other purposes of minimum
setbacks he mentioned natural lighting, reasonable distance between buildings, etc. Colbert
then writes "the provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa City's
comprehensive plan in a matter that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity,
and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City." And Colbert mentions that the zoning code is a
tool to execute this plan, the setback modification, he says that could be allowed in Chapter 4 is
a permissive portion of the code, it's not mandatory. Colbert asks the City to please reject this
minor modification request. Moore appreciates Colbert's words and when he heard Colbert
would have to work tonight and may not be able to attend this meeting, he asked Colbert to
write a few sentences about himself and this is what Colbert wrote. "I'm 29 years old, City High
graduate, a maintenance mechanic and a Union steward at General Mills. I've lived in this
house since 2019 and I was born in the hospital I can see from my backyard."
Moving on, Moore reiterated the building official states it is her opinion the minor modification
conforms with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, but she offers no facts to support
the statement, other than to say that the arrangement of the proposal development on the lot is
"similar to the other existing dwellings along the alleys in this neighborhood". In the April 9
memorandum that just came a few days ago, the building official states many two- and three-
story buildings are present in the blocks surrounding the subject property, including in the
immediate 200-foot notification area and "it is common for such buildings to also not meet the
current setback requirements. As such, though the proposal is uncommon, it generally reflects
the building scale and placement of structures in the area." As Moore already alluded to, they
looked at all the properties and there are no three-story buildings that are non -conforming in
terms of setback in the vicinity, there's only one two-story building that is non -conforming. The
appellants believe this is a serious error on the part of the building official and it contradicts the
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 8 of 27
finding that the proposed three story 35-foot-tall building generally reflects the building scale and
placement structures in this area. Moore also noted while it's true that the setbacks are similar,
some of these properties are one- and two-story structures and not subject to additional
setbacks, so the decision makes a setback rule which applies to three-story buildings irrelevant.
Additionally, not conforming to the intent of these regulations has consequences and they
believe it will diminish light and air to neighboring dwellings, the setbacks are all about the need
for more space around taller buildings to ensure light and airflow. The neighbors at 323 North
Van Buren would be denied sunlight, especially in the winter when it's crucial for the enjoyment
of a home. They believe it will not provide opportunity for privacy between dwellings or promote
a reasonable physical relationship between residences. The proposed building will tower over
the other buildings as it's going to stand 10 feet taller and it's actually 15 feet taller than the roof
line as defined by zoning code. Lastly, it will not reflect the general building scale and
placement of structures in the vicinity nor will it be compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
Moore next showed a video of the area for December and how the light moves to help visualize
how the area will be shaded with a three-story building next door. Moore reiterated this is a
small lot, it's one of the smallest in the neighborhood and this house would be the largest and
tallest on the block and the fifth largest house within the entire north side RNS-12. The
proposed three-story building with this flat roof and monolithic shape will dominate the
surrounding neighborhood and clearly does not conform to the intent of the zoning code
criterion four, it will be detrimental and injurious to the adjacent properties so in the end it just
doesn't stand to reason that zoning standards should be modified. Moore showed again the
frontal view of the properties in the area, with the heights listed and noted the roof peak of the
red house and peak on the yellow house as much shorter than the proposed 35-foot house.
Pretorius noted the only thing that the City granted was the actual setback reduction, one foot
on one side and two feet on the other side. No one could stop a three-story building from being
constructed, and they keep touching on the height of this building, which, to her knowledge, the
Board has no ability to reverse or prevent. The special consideration was about the setbacks.
Moore agreed that the design was not the main issue, but the idea is that these larger setbacks
are necessary to build such a tall building and it's unlikely that the builder would build a skinny
tall house there. The height and the setbacks are directly related because getting up to a three-
story building is what is kicking in the setbacks.
Pretorius understands but if Prestige and the buyer were to shave the one foot off the one side
and two on the other, it would drop it to 2400-some square feet. Would this group no longer be
against the building? Is it truly the setbacks that are the issue, or is it a different direction like the
height? With the presentation about the shadowing, she wanted to make sure that the direction
they were going is clear to the Board, as far as what they were actually appealing on this.
Moore stated they have never been posed that hypothetical question but will think about that
and try to answer at the end of his presentation. He wanted to reemphasize a few more points,
one thing that needs to be clear is the decision renders the provision for setbacks meaningless.
It flies in the face of the zoning code to put such a tall building on a lot too small to achieve the
setback, and this setback is only required for a house that is three stories tall, and the building
official's decision contains no discussion of what constitutes harm. A provision for a greater
setback for a taller building assumes harm if there is not an adequate setback. The proposed
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 9 of 27
three-story building fails the intent of the zoning code, that a general building scale and
placement of structures in neighborhoods promotes reasonable physical relationships, etc. A
reasonable, good-sized, two-story building could meet the setback standard where they
wouldn't have to ask for setback changes, and there are no properties in the neighborhood
where a 35-foot-tall building is only five feet from a residential property line, in fact there are no
three stories. Allowing a three-story building that does not meet the required seven -foot setback
will be granting this property special privileges that have negative effects on its neighbors,
approval of such a building is counter to the basic principles of zoning law. The property should
be treated in a similar manner, it defies logic that one of the smallest lots in the zone should be
granted special privileges to build one of the largest buildings. Moore wanted to reiterate they
want to see a new house on this property that fits the neighborhood. He showed a few more
slides to give a sense of the scale, the existing buildings in the neighborhood, and how the
proposed three-story building would relate to the rest of the properties in the neighborhood.
Moore noted the Prestige's attorney also addressed this issue of height in his letter and cited it
as one of the tallest in the neighborhood. The attorney cited other houses in the area that were
tall. One on Bloomington Street is 27.5 feet to the peak of the roof and another cited is 25.3 feet
to its peak and a final house that is 27.8 feet to the peak. Even the apartment building across
the street is only 27.8 feet tall. Moore showed a few more pictures taken from the assessor's
website to show the scale and how things fit in the neighborhood.
In closing, Moore stated the response to Pretorius' question is that the height and setbacks are
related, and while they have no idea what will be built on this lot, if this modification is denied
they would hope that they build a two-story house. What is clear is that they should not be given
special privileges that harm the neighbors, and approval of the setback reduction would allow
them to do that. He wanted to again thank the Board for taking this appeal and to remind them
again, that all of the five criteria, every single one, must be met. They think it's clear that the
building official fails on criteria one, two and four. Moore ends by asking the Board final
questions; (1) is it reasonable to allow the largest house on one of the smallest lots; (2) is it
impractical to build a more reasonably sized house on this site; (3) is a three-story house
compatible with this neighborhood of one- and two-story houses; (4) would you want your
neighbor to build a 35 foot high three-story wall five feet from your property.
James Larew (504 E. Bloomington Street) thanked the Board for being willing to take on these
heavy tasks. He noted he and his wife own the property across the street, 100 feet away, and
bought that property 30 years ago with the goal of making it appropriate for the neighborhood
and restoring it. They were able to repair it to make a wonderful law office, and they have
apartments upstairs. The City on its own motion about two and a half years ago, without
requesting in advance, designated his property as a historic landmark zone. Other people
similarly chosen battled against it to get the City's decision overturned because it carries heavy
burdens and probably depresses the market value. Larew stated that at the time, the City
argued how important it was to keep the character of the neighborhood intact. The decision for a
property only 100 feet away seems at the very least, to be a callous disregard for whatever
values infuse this decision to tell them that their property should be designated as an historic
landmark, and he doesn't understand how the City's right and left hand can be so completely
unfamiliar with what the other is doing, but that has happened. Larew noted the reason he wrote
another memo is because a lot has happened in Iowa law even between the official's decision
and the public hearing held in conjunction with it, and today's meeting. The Iowa Supreme Court
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 10 of 27
has put to bed a question that has been asked now for about 20 years. For 60 years, in the
decision called Deardorf, State of Iowa imposed a severe burden on anyone who wanted to
have an area variance, that is to say, the use of a property was within the intended restrictions
of the zoning area, but the area they wanted to use was more than what the law allowed. It is
very seldom granted. Larew noted a school of thought in the last 20 years was adopted by some
upper Midwest states, sometimes by Supreme Court ruling, sometimes by legislative action, that
this standard was too burdensome, in fact, the word became impractical, it was impractical to
apply strictly the zoning requirements on area restrictions in zoning. Larew acknowledged he is
not the original scholar, he took those from a recent article written by former dean of the law
school, Bill Hines, published in the Iowa Law Journal where he described this tension in the law
that in some states, it seemed like it was too much to strictly enforce area designations and
zones until this impracticality doctrine came there. Larew does not know the history of this
zoning ordinance but believes there's some in the City that are predicting that Iowa law will
change, so they created this local category called minor modifications which when it came to
area are really the same thing as an area variance by another name. To lessen the burden,
instead of it being an unnecessary hardship, which is what Iowa law requires, making use of the
property almost valueless, an extraordinarily high burden which some people objected to,
instead get to something called impractical. Larew noted as he reads this area of the Iowa
Municipal Code, he thinks this was an effort, probably in good faith by well-intentioned
progressive people, to make the Iowa City Code a little more amenable to those who wanted to
have a use that didn't comply strictly with the Code and so they invented this area and only
imposed upon the proponents of an exception for an area requirement something to prove it
was impractical. Larew stated to the extent that question has been open for a number of years
the Supreme Court has it slammed it shut and it came up in a case that arose in Clear Lake,
Iowa, where a party with two houses next to each other, each of them fronting Clear Lake,
beautiful properties, one built a side porch and when the porch was finished it encroached on
the nine -foot side yard setback, and after they built it the neighbors complained and everyone
said will be impractical to turn tear off that porch it's already been built. It passed to the city
official who let it go over the objection of the neighbor, they went to the County Board of
Adjustment and they said it would be impractical to make them tear it off, they appealed it to the
District Court, who approved it, to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which approved it, to the Iowa
Supreme Court who reversed the decision, noting their decision of 60 years ago, Deardorf, is
still Iowa Law and it's not the mere claim of impracticality that should allow one person to ignore,
even with the city's permission, the strict side yard setback requirements. What the Iowa
Supreme Court said just six weeks ago cannot be done, but it is what Iowa City and the building
officials are asking this Board to do, to do something that's unlawful. Larew thinks it's as simple
as that, they cannot call something a minor modification, but in fact it is an area variance, by
another name, and the issue will be resolved in a higher court if it's not resolved here. Larew
made it clear he doesn't give legal advice to the Board, he was before this Board a couple years
ago with a different group, and at that time they had a different custom, and he is grateful that it
has been changed, that the City Attorney could not be the one to advise this Board, as the
whole question was whether a City employee had violated the law. This Board at the very least
is entitled to an independent legal judgement as to whether or not the ordinance itself is
unlawful, not even necessarily at the time that building official made that decision, but it is now
clearly their decision as to whether to allow this. Larew noted others who have presented, and
who have given their own descriptions, can identify why it doesn't even meet the test of
impractical, but that's not even the test here, the test here is unnecessary hardship and if ever
there was an example of where a proposed building project shouldn't be approved because to
do otherwise would create an unnecessary hardship. In this is the case there's all kinds of
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 11 of 27
beneficial uses that could be made of this property. Now that the owner benefiting from a
zoning designation, which has been carved out for reasons he doesn't understand, the carve up
looks like a gerrymandered political district in upstate New York, how could this one lot have its
own special designation that doesn't fit with the neighborhood, how a building they used to have
a residential home on could be allowed to be demolished and for two years, allowed for informal
parking and storage building materials is unknown, but the last thing it needs is one more
exceptional treatment, one that is contrary to the Iowa Constitution Home Rule Authority,
contrary to the statutes which empower city boards of adjustment to exist and one that's
contrary to common law and the most recent one being the early decision of six weeks ago by
the Iowa Supreme Court. Thank you for your patience.
Linda McGuire wanted to address the Board's question about the height requirement because
the submitted appeal document addresses why three stories and the setback minor modification
requests are connected, so it's clear that the decision should not be to build this building with
the setback they're requesting. They either have to grant the setback or not for this particular
building and the scale of the building is connected to the minor modification request, in that the
minor modification has to reflect the intent and purpose of setback purposes, one of which is to
reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the neighborhood and be
compatible with buildings in the vicinity. McGuire acknowledged the Board may not have the
power to address the height of a building or the zoning, however the setback requirement is tied
to the building fitting in the neighborhood which the Board needs to consider. The fact that they
are wanting to have a three-story building and need a setback modification to do that is part of
what the Board needs to decide. McGuire pointed out that in the submitted appeal documents,
the points she is making are two, three and four of the appeal document.
Dorothy Fowles (310 North Gilbert Street) co -owns the house at the other end of the alley on
the south side. First, she thanked the Board for serving, acknowledging it is an important
volunteer citizen position and at times it's a difficult one, this is especially true in this case when
they are being asked to reverse the decision of a City employee. Fowles noted she served on
the Board of Adjustment for five years and chaired it for one year, and they were also put in the
unpleasant position of reversing a staff decision, but it was and still is the duty of the Board to
consider appeals when there is a disagreement about the administrative decision made by the
City, as in the case today. In this case, the Board is being asked to recognize that the lot area
standards control the intensity of uses on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new
buildings with surrounding development. The presenters of the appeal have made a compelling
case that this three-story building, with the reduced setback, is not consistent or compatible with
the surrounding development and that it is not a request for a minor modification. In addition, the
regulations are "intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between
buildings, provide options for light, air and privacy." From personal experience, and as a
designer, Fowles has concern about the impact of rainwater and snow on the adjacent property
to the north. They own a well -maintained charming farmhouse as a rental property on South
Van Buren and a developer built a nine unit apartment structure to the north and a little uphill.
The building was too close to the lot line for its size and as a result dumped a large quantity of
water and snow on her property and the basement. They didn't have the finances or time to fight
a wealthy developer and reluctantly sold the property. The design of the proposed three-story
house at 319 threatens to create a similar problem for the homeowner to the north, imagine
heavy rain from the north hitting and running down that three-story wall flooding the adjacent
property, or a snowdrift caused by the three-story wall in a heavy snowstorm.
Fowles also read from the letter from Ann Freerks because it is pertinent to what they're talking
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 12 of 27
about. She writes "I served as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner for the City of Iowa City for
over a dozen years, several as the chairperson. I was on the Commission when we carefully
researched and wrote the current Zoning Code that was adapted by the City Council and the
Commission spent many months working with our City planning staff to draft a Zoning Code that
would help preserve existing neighborhoods as well as guide development, a new neighborhood
so they create an attractive cohesive and sustainable living environment for years to come.
When we drafted the minor modification sections, we wrote it to allow minor adjustments to
zoning rules so property owners would not have to go before the Board of Adjustments for
relatively small projects, the key word here is minor. The intent was to allow for small additions
to a building where unique circumstances made it impossible to comply with setback standards
and only if the minor modification met the intent of the zoning rules and did not cause harm to its
neighbors and structures of the neighborhood as a whole over time. I want to be very clear to
say that we never intended for the minor modification process to allow a three-story house in the
neighborhood of one- and two-story houses, this is not minor. The Zoning Code makes it clear
that the City should strive for consistency and treat similar properties similarly. The minor
modification process was not intended to grant special privileges to some property owners at
the expense of their neighbors. It is important to note that the Code also makes it clear that the
intensity of development is based on lot size, according to the standards applicable in each
zoning district. As such the lot should be developed at an intensity allowed by the lot area,
height limits and setback requirements. The smallest lot should not have the largest building.
For many years, I put a great deal of energy into making sure that the decisions that the
Planning and Zoning Commission made were wise and just, there are a few mistakes, and I am
reminded of these as a walk or drive around town. However, overall, the work has created an
incredible vibrant community. I urge you to overturn this so that we don't see the impact of this
decision start to crop up throughout the community. The minor modification which you have
been asked to review in no way meets this intent and the criteria that the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council established for approval. It should be overturned quickly and
not be allowed to create a precedent which will cause damage, not just to this neighborhood but
in all Iowa City neighborhoods. it
Don Fowles (310 North Gilbert Street) noted Pretorius asked Moore if they had any issues other
than this technical one about the setback, as the Board of Adjustments had nothing else to say
about the building. Fowles hopes it's been clear that these issues raised about the impact on
other people, consistency with the neighborhood, not dominating the neighborhood, all is part of
the Code and so those aspects with need to be cleared by this Board, it's not just the setback.
Pretorius agreed but noted she is not clear, as a home builder, that even if this decision by the
building department was overruled, they could still to her understanding build a three-story
house if it was three feet narrower on the lot.
Lehmann reiterated they need a five-foot setback for the first two stories, to add a third story
they need a seven -foot setback, and so the minor modification reduced the seven -foot setback
by two feet on one side and one foot on the other.
Pretorius asked if they shrunk the footprint down to 21 feet wide, they would be able to build a
three-story house. Lehmann confirmed that was correct.
Don Fowles noted there would still be section 14-2A-4B which says that the building standards
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 13 of 27
with their regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship
between buildings and provide options for light, air and privacy and discourage buildings that
visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. It goes on to say that it should provide
opportunities for privacy between dwellings, reflect the general building scale and placement of
structures in the City's neighborhoods, promote a reasonable physical relationship between
buildings and between residences. Fowles noted they have heard a lot of testimony that this is
not particularly compatible, or not at all compatible, with the rest of the neighborhood. Fowles
stressed that is part of the Code that they should address, they shouldn't just say well okay if
they make it seven feet, we don't have anything to do with it, they're still violating these things.
Pretorius asked staff if the Board is allowed to appeal anything other than that decision by the
city to allow the setbacks to be modified.
Lientz stated this is an appeal of a decision by the building official, the proceedings here are to
determine whether the decision of the building official was in error. The decisions of the building
official were set out earlier in the staff presentation and materials before the Board and the
question for the Board is does the decision by the building official satisfy the criteria of the minor
modification, this is not a variance request, it's a minor modification. There's the proponent and
then the opposition will say what criteria they think are within the Code that are appropriate. The
decision here of the Board is going to be based upon whether a decision of the building official
was in error when applying those criteria.
Lehmann stated they need to look at the criteria as if they're making that decision, similar to as
would occur with a special exception, where they have criteria and have to decide if they are
met or not. Fowles is talking about the intent of the setback standards as they the Board may
find them tied into the minor modification criteria.
Chrischilles stated if the Board is only supposed to deal with the five criteria for the minor
modification, but since this is dealing with a request to reduce setbacks, how does section 14-
2A-4B fit into this, which outlines the intentions for the minimum setback requirements for
principal buildings. Moore also referred to that in his presentation.
Lientz stated the criteria are listed in section 14-413-1 B, and there is a component of B4 that the
modification request is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation. In this case,
the regulation modified would be the setback standards. Those are decisions that the Board is
going to have to make based off the evidence and testimony that is being presented here
tonight and is in the meeting packet. It is the burden of the Board to articulate the reasons why,
or why not, a decision was or wasn't in error.
Chrischilles asked if they can apply section 14-2A-4B in their decision -making. Lientz replied
that they should apply the approval criteria with respect to the building official's decision, this is
a minor modification, and the criteria listed there. If the Board believes that the other criteria
from other parts of the Code inform those criteria, then articulate that in the decision.
Don Fowles noted that Prestige Properties bought the substandard lot knowing what they were
buying, they are seasoned real estate investors, it's odd for them to then claim hardship that
they have a substandard lot and need to be build a big house for it to be up to modern
standards. They knew what they were buying, they shouldn't have to have a variance for that.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 14 of 27
Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) stated she lives in the area and is concerned about
variances like this being granted because she thinks the neighborhood needs to have its
integrity kept and it's disconcerting that things like this will likely happen again if this variance is
granted and she really hopes that it doesn't take place.
Mike Oliveira (Prestige Properties, 329 E. Court Street — Unit 2) wanted to thank the Board of
Adjustment for allowing them to be here tonight, they took the position internally with their
attorneys and with the doctors who commissioned this house at 319 North Van Buren, they're
both doctors in the Quad Cities and know the area of Van Buren Street very well, they lived
there when they went to college. They are astutely watching this as they pick the design of a
house that they wanted. Oliveira has heard a lot of issues with this house but it's a small lot and
they looked at many designs and because of the setbacks, the new rules that Iowa City has with
green space requirements and things like that, to meet the demands the client would like to
have in their house, they came up with this design. Oliveira noted a lot of people complain about
their intentions, which are not valid points for this decision, they stand by the City's original
decision of decreasing the setback for a building that would add revenue to the City coffers and
enhance a neighborhood. That lot has been vacant for a couple years, the previous house was
in disrepair when they bought it, they rented it out for a period of time and then decided it was
non -salvageable and, quite frankly, when it sold in foreclosure, it sat there for a long while, and
none of the neighbors took on the responsibility of buying the lot except for him. Oliveira noted
he lives one block from here in a house that is the same height as the proposed house and
there's houses along the street a block away that are the same height. He doesn't believe a lot
of the arguments brought up are relevant to the decision, he understands that moving forward
may get some more pushback, but the bottom line is this house was made to accommodate the
buyers' needs, what they wanted to see, and he believes they are in their rights to build a type
of house that will actually add to the neighborhood. He noted there is an apartment building right
across the street, when you look out the house there's an alley to the south and these people
are going to be investing a lot of money in a house that they want to keep for a long time.
Oliveira is hoping that the Board will take a look at what the City arguments are and reduce the
noise about other issues, they can work through a lot in time, but they need to have a plan and
the plan right now is for them to move forward on building a house on a small lot to meet the
proposed builders requirements.
Pretorius asked if the Board approves the appeal and the builder has to shave three feet off the
house, would they still build the house. Oliveira responded probably not, they've shrunk the size
down already and it's a pretty narrow house and it's difficult and doesn't make a good living
situation for their size of family. They have three kids and themselves, so there's five people
going to be in that house, so it's a challenge.
Andy Litton stated he didn't want to rehash things that have already been said but he is not
opposed to the property being developed, it is just his opinion that a conforming building could
be built on that site without special treatment, following the current setback requirements, and in
his opinion the proposed house is too large for the lot and they know that because it doesn't
meet the current zoning setbacks.
Cox asked for clarification around standards regarding privacy and light because those would
be met through observation of other dimensional standards. Sitzman stated the other
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 15 of 27
dimensional standards are the basics of the Zoning Code that are not being modified so overall
height and lot coverage and other things would continue to apply. The incremental change here
is the amount of feet requested to the change the setback and staff views the incremental
change for the setbacks as being minor. All other regulations that this property would be subject
to will continue to be enforced.
Cox asked if they are talking about the scale of a building, maximum height being 35 feet, so
are they considering what that 35 feet looks like when they consider scale and because when
he looked through this neighborhood, a majority of the properties have a peaked roof line. Is any
part of their deliberation here because this will be 35 feet of straight up all the way around? To
him that seems like a scale question. Lehmann said it is up to the Board to decide. What the
Board is looking at is the decision Sitzman made as the building official which is one
determination, and the Board needs to decide if they agree with that or not. The Board is being
asked to review this as a quasi-judicial board to make that determination. After the Board, it is
up to the courts to decide who have the same regulations and the same written standards that
the Board does to make a decision. Lehmann reiterated, as the Board, they can affirm, they
can overturn, they can partially affirm and also could put in conditions if that is something that
the Board is interested in.
Carlson noted according to section 14-2A-4B, the minimum step back requirements for principal
buildings, it says the stepback requirements are intended to reflect the general building scale
and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods and promote a reasonable physical
relationship between buildings and between residences. Carlson stated she is having problems
trying to understand how this building meets those two requirements.
Cox asked who created the recording time lapse video, he did not catch who created that or if it
was sourced.
Dave Moore stated that came from a professional architect who has a laser device that
measures the heights of buildings and the heights of proposed buildings as well.
Carlson asked again about the Code statement of general building scale and placement of
structures in the City's neighborhoods to promote a reasonable physical relationship between
the buildings. How does this building, as it is right now as allowed by City staff, how would that
meet these two things. Sitzman stated that in considering the modification, she looked at the
surrounding neighborhood and the base zoning and to what extent things are allowed to be
changed by a minor modification. As far as the context of the neighborhood, she looked at the
nature of the homes in that area. She looked at setbacks and base requirements are five feet for
two stories, seven feet for three stories and the minor modification allows them to go down to a
minimum of three feet for two stories, so in the context of whether the request was in the scale
of possibilities, what was in the neighborhood was the basis for her analysis.
Dave Moore stated he listened to this discussion in response to the building official's statement
that other dimension standards make this okay, but a three-story house is going to cast more of
a shadow on 323 than a two-story house, so the other dimensional standards will not help, and
that Olivera had stated he will not build a three t -story if he does not get the
minor modification.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 16 of 27
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion.
Chrischilles moved for approval of APL21-0001, an appeal of a decision by the Building
Official to grant a minor modification (MOD20-0009) reducing the side setbacks to build a
new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street: alleging an error in the determination
that all applicable approval criteria were met.
Carlson seconded the motion.
Chrischilles stated as often is the case they are forced to base their approval or denial on
certain aspects in this case it was stated at the beginning it has to be based on errors or
misinterpretations of a building official or actions that are arbitrary or capricious in their decision
to grant the minor modifications. His opinion is that there were errors or misinterpretations of the
building official based on several things. He thinks Dave Moore gave a good presentation and
his allegation of the fact that one, two and four had errors in them was valid. They only need to
have one to prove his point and Chrischilles would say number one is an issue because the
builders are creating the impracticality by building a house that is too large for that particular lot
and then asking the City to modify the rules, which they are allowed to do, but they're asking
them to modify the rules to meet their needs and there is no hardship here, the hardship was
created by them. Chrischilles stated the setbacks were created for a reason and it has been
stated by several the reasons for having setbacks in the first place. The intentions are not being
met so Chrischilles believes that they should deny the minor modification.
Pretorius stated during the presentation at one point some properties were brought up as
examples and one area was the Peninsula neighborhood which is where she lives and built
houses, so she knows what the City setbacks are here which is five feet and on occasion they
are four feet. Various houses that were shown on the presentation are maxing out those
setbacks and are only five feet from the lot line. Additionally, there's a mix of houses in this
community as well that are ranging from 1200 square foot ranches to 5000 square foot homes
right next door to each other and the Peninsula was actually meant to replicate downtown Iowa
City in some ways. Therefore, when she thinks about what the City granted with this minor
modification, simply the setbacks going from seven feet to five feet on one side and to six feet
on another, she believes that the seven -foot setback is excessive. However, when she asked
the builder if the future owners of the property would still build if the Board allowed the appeal,
he said no they probably wouldn't. There's still a chance that he and the homeowner are going
to go home and think about this tonight and decide they're fine with the 21-foot wide house, and
from what she has heard tonight, if they decided to do that, the City cannot stop the building of a
three-story modern house, and there will still be unhappy people and she feels like what they're
trying to do is to stop the building of this particular house, specifically the three-story aspect of it
but it doesn't seem like there is the ability to do that. They can go home tonight and come back
building a 21-foot-wide house that is three stories. So all the Board is doing at this point is
shrinking the size of the house. Pretorius noted as a builder she knows how complicated that is
so, she just wants to make sure that they're doing this for the right reasons.
Chrischilles stated they cannot base their opinion on what they may or may not do, all they can
base their opinion on is if they believe what is going on at the current time is right or wrong. He
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 17 of 27
stated if they deny the minor modification, the builder has an opportunity to still build a three-
story house anyway but that's not what they're here to decide, they cannot foretell, all they can
do is vote on what is in front of them and whether they think the current minor modification is
right or wrong, and if an error has been made or it's been misinterpreted in some way.
Pretorius doesn't disagree with Chrischilles, she simply doesn't see how the setbacks
themselves are affecting the neighborhood. A house being built a little bit closer to another
house or a little closer on the other side is in fact what they're supposed to be judging right now.
Chrischilles stated that's the reason for setbacks in the first place, if there weren't any setbacks,
one could build houses abutting each other so there's reasons for standards and they have to
decide whether those standards are reasonable and whether they should be enforced or not.
Pretorius acknowledged 400 houses in the Peninsula within blocks of her that all built within five
feet of the property line and that was the point she was trying to make.
Carlson asked how tall those houses are on the Peninsula, are they 35 feet tall.
Pretorius stated most are in fact 35 foot tall, they have very high pitches on their houses.
Carlson asked what the setbacks between those buildings are.
Pretorius noted in some cases four feet from the lot line.
Cox stated he appreciates Pretorius's example and loves City history and architecture which is
part of why he enjoyed being on this Board. He did state however in the Peninsula those were
all built over a short period of time and when he drives through the Peninsula, nothing jumps out
in the way that this proposal does in the way in which it relates to the rest of the surrounding
properties so he thinks that criterion two is valid and there are implications for privacy, light and
the general enjoyment of the properties around this as its proposed, and he doesn't think that
was adequately considered. He sees implications here that haven't been adequately addressed,
and it stems from the scale with the setbacks they are being asked to provide.
Chrischilles agrees that when the City took a look at this, they were more concerned about
whether or not the boxes were getting checked and not necessarily thinking about the other
ramifications of that house being built there and agrees with Cox that it will result in less privacy
and is it a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and does it reflect the general
building scale and placement of structures, etc.
Pretorius again stated hypothetically she took her thoughts in the opposite direction that they
could in fact continue to build this exact house, just three foot narrower, and then all those
things would still happen. Is it the setbacks that are creating all the issues, or is it just the house
itself that is the problem.
Chrischilles stated they won't know that until they build if they build a three-foot narrower house
there, tonight they must decide what is before them, not what possibilities may happen.
Carlson agreed they need to look at what is directly in front of them tonight, and whether they
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 18 of 27
feel that is appropriate for that lot in that neighborhood.
Pretorius stated then she doesn't see an issue with allowing a house to be wider, especially
since it's not exceeding the five-foot setback, which is still considered safe regarding fire code
and whatnot, so she thinks the five-foot setback which has been granted is more than adequate.
Carlson agreed if the only concern is for fire and to have enough space between the houses for
fire protection, then yes, but there should be other considerations taken into account such as
the general building scale and the placement of the buildings, those things are important.
The Board next discussed the findings of facts. Lehmann reminded them as they are going
through the findings, they can adopt all of staff's findings, or they can adopt their own findings
for each criterion as they see fit.
Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item APL21-0001 he does not concur with the findings in
the staff report, because he concludes that the first standard was not met based on the fact that
the condition of impracticality was created by the owner and therefore the City should not have
approved that as one of the conditions of the minor modification. Carlson seconded those
findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3 (Chrischilles, Carlson, Cox) to 2 (Parker,
Pretorius). The appeal is sustained, the minor modification is overturned.
Pretorius stated the motion is 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.
Lientz noted his involvement is completed and Dulek from the City Attorney's office will take
over for the rest of the agenda items.
Cox also left the meeting and Hazell rejoined the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0002:
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting
a special exception to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for a multi -family
redevelopment project at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette
Street.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann stated this exception is being submitted by Axiom Consultants on the behalf of
Gilbane Development for a parking reduction of 50% for multifamily development at 700 South
Dubuque Street (the primary address but it includes a couple others on South Dubuque Street
and also on Lafayette Street). Lehmann showed an aerial of the site and noted it includes a
couple different parcels and buildings that are proposed to be redeveloped. There is an alley in
the middle of the buildings and it's a mix of uses around the properties, public uses to the south
and to the west, residential multifamily uses to the west and north, some commercial uses to the
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 19 of 27
east and some light industrial uses. However, the site is all zoned Riverfront Crossings - Central
Crossings. Lehmann showed some photos to give context to the site. He also pointed out the
change in elevation across the site, as well as its location with respect to Ralston Creek.
For background, Lehmann reiterated this is a request for a 50% parking reduction to redevelop
the site. It was recently rezoned from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) on February 2 and the rezoning
came with two sets of conditions. The first is improvements to Ralston Creek, including removal
of invasive trees, stream bank stabilization, tree planting, and sidewalk and pedestrian
improvements, all to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy. The second is dedicating a
sanitary sewer easement through the site. The applicant has also requested a vacation of the
alley between S. Dubuque and Lafayette Street (VAC20-0003) but Planning & Zoning does not
have that on their agenda yet, they'll hear that once a final conveyance price is agreed upon.
The standards the Board is looking at are tied to minimum off street parking which are intended
to ensure onsite parking accommodates most parking demand and prevents spillover parking
into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Lehmann noted Central Crossings district is intended
for moderate intensity mixed use development with entries opening onto pedestrian friendly
public streets and streetscapes. This district is split by the railroad tracks, north of the railroad
one can request a fee in lieu of parking, but this property is just south of the railroad and doesn't
have that option. Therefore, they're requesting the parking reduction through the unique
circumstances provision in the Code which specifically states that if there are unique
characteristics such that the number of parking spaces is excessive, it can be reduced by up to
50%, or up to 100% for historic properties which is not being considered in this case.
Lehmann explained the proposed project is to redevelop the site as a six -story multifamily
building with approximately 250 dwelling units or 501 bedrooms. There will be around 47 studio
and one -bedroom apartments, 155 two -bedroom apartments and 48 three -bedroom apartments.
This would require 387 parking spaces by Code, so a 50% reduction request would only require
193 spaces onsite. The application indicates they would have 203 spaces onsite. Approval of
this exception would allow redevelopment of the property as currently proposed.
Lehmann next showed the site plan and pointed out a few features, most of the site will be
covered with the building, and there are two pedestrian exits onto South Dubuque Street and
one onto Lafayette Street, there is also some on -street parking that would be provided as part of
the revised streetscape they're proposing on their site plan. The exit from their parking is being
proposed partially below grade at roughly the location of the alley is now.
The Board's responsibility tonight is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application
based on the facts presented. To approve they must find that all applicable standards are met,
which includes specific standards pertaining to the waiver requested and general standards for
all special exceptions.
For this special exception, the specific standards are at 14-5A-4F Parking Reduction for Other
Unique Circumstances where it states if a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the
number of parking spaces is excessive, then the Board of Adjustment may grant a special
exception of up to 50% reduction in parking. For staff's findings regarding that criterion, Gilbane
has requested the use based on unique characteristics, so they can allow up to a 50% parking
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 20 of 27
reduction. The specific use they're proposing is housing for University of Iowa students with
student -specific features such as individual leases, furnished units, on -site study lounges, things
tied specifically to students. Students exhibit a lower demand for onsite parking and are more
likely to utilize other modes of transportation, such as transit, walking and biking. Lehmann
explained some of the evidence is tied to downtown residents in Iowa City, where they tend to
use cars less due to the proximity to the University, employment and other services. Data was
provided from the 2019 5-year American Community Survey, specifically table B08301 for
census tracts 16, 17 and 21 (which are near downtown). Generally 52% of people in those
tracts drive to work as a typical commute, 7% carpool, 34% walk and 4% use public transit. The
remainder either use other modes of transportation or work from home. Tract 21, the closest to
downtown, has the lowest levels of car usage, as only 27% of folks there drive alone to work.
Lehmann showed a map of the Census Tracts noting tract 21 is basically the heart of downtown
and includes a lot of university and student housing. Tract 16 is also housing typically occupied
by students but is a little west of downtown. It includes the long blocks on South Van Buren,
Johnson, and Dodge Streets which contains a lot of student housing. Tract 17 is where this
property is actually located, right on the north border. Tract 17 tends to have higher numbers of
folks who drive alone, but it encompasses the entirety of the area south of the railroad tracks
and north of Highway 6 which includes less student housing. The applicant primarily used tracts
16 and 21 in their application as their comparable tracts, but staff analysis used all three of
them. The applicant also provided some comparative properties and staff looked at some
additional surrounding properties. The proposed project includes 0.81 underground parking
spaces per dwelling unit, or 0.41 per bed. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) uses
a demand rate of 0.9 vehicles per unit or 0.48 per bed for multifamily dense multi -use urban
housing. Lehmann noted that is not specific to student housing, though, so it gives some
indication of downtown housing generally but isn't specific to the specific use of student housing
that is being discussed here. The applicant also points to The Rise which is a student housing
project on East Court Street, they use 0.6 spaces per unit or 0.34 per bed. Staff is not aware of
any complaints about spillover parking from there. Staff also looked at some adjacent properties
that have been redeveloped under the form -based code. 628 South Dubuque Street to the north
has 0.55 parking spaces per unit and 225 East Prentiss Street has 1.25 parking spaces per unit.
Lehmann acknowledged those surrounding properties have a wider variance, but overall staff
believes the unique characteristic does suggest that the required parking is excessive here.
Regarding the seven general criteria at 14-413-3, the first is if it will be detrimental to health,
safety, comfort or general welfare of the public. Staff finds that parking ratios are similar to
other projects downtown and seem appropriate based on downtown census data for mode of
transportation to work. Parking ratios are below the suggested ratios by the ITE but the student
market is more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than they would anticipate in
their parking ratios. Generally, staff doesn't anticipate that spillover parking will impact on -street
parking in neighboring residential areas, most nearby streets are either metered or they do not
allow on -street parking, especially in residential areas. There is on -street parking along
Lafayette Street but generally serves the commercial uses and the proposed project provides
some new public parking spaces along South Dubuque Street. The Johnson County parking
ramp to the southwest can serve some of those adjacent uses as well and there is also the
Harrison Street public parking ramp, which is to the north maybe a block and a half with 550
spaces. Staff believes that could accommodate downtown visitors or commuters. However, it
wouldn't help parking for residents in the proposed building because regular parking permits in
public ramps are typically not available to downtown residents. Staff also believes that,
assuming the target market is accurate and regular travel is not conducted by car, some parking
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 21 of 27
demand might be satisfied by the University's remote parking lots, as mentioned by the
applicant. Similar to some other recent projects, tenants are going to have to consider their
reduced onsite parking in their decision making and staff believes that the proposed project will
attract tenants who have a preference for less onsite parking or that don't require as much. So
overall staff believes that the public parking reduction wouldn't be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
The second general criterion is that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use or
enjoyment of surrounding properties and will substantially diminish or impair property values.
Regarding parking impacts, staff finds that many properties nearby, especially those owned by
the University and County to the west and the southwest have more than adequate parking so
those won't be negatively impacted by the proposal. Other nearby residential properties, as
noted earlier, vary in their parking supply and typically cater to the same market, so staff doesn't
anticipate issues, especially as there are no single-family residential uses nearby, which is really
the concern regarding spillover parking. Additionally, the Harrison Street ramp provides off-
street parking for customers and visitors and the project provides some on -street parking. Staff
also believes that the project will increase nearby pedestrian traffic that might improve
commercial viability of some nearby businesses. The project also includes improvements to
Ralston Creek which will increase the attractiveness of the area, especially for properties to the
east. Therefore, staff believes the parking reduction will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity nor will affect property values negatively.
The third criterion is that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and ordinary
development and improvements of surrounding properties. Lehmann noted the area is already
developed, there's been recent redevelopment nearby, especially to the north and west, and
that's only increased the demand for additional improvements in Riverfront Crossings. Staff
noted the proposal may cause temporary closures of streets as part of construction but doesn't
create any long-term impacts for the development of surrounding properties, so staff doesn't
believe that the proposed reduction would impede normal development.
The fourth criterion is related to adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and infrastructure of
the existing streets that are provided to the site. Lehmann noted the existing streets seem to be
adequate for vehicular and pedestrian access and pedestrian access would be supplemented
by amenities along Ralston Creek. As far as other factors like utilities, drainage, and necessary
facilities, those generally get covered under site plan review and building permit processes, so
staff believes that all those will be met at that time.
Criterion five states that adequate measures have or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
to minimize traffic congestion on public streets for vehicular access to the site. Lehmann noted
most access will occur at the parking entrance that is at grade on Lafayette Street near where
the alley is located. As a result, staff recommends that the alley vacation be a condition of
approval for this parking reduction. Lafayette Street also intersects South Dubuque Street with a
stop sign and Ralston Creek blocks access to the west. Staff believes that is adequate at this
time. In terms of other vehicular access points, there are several on South Dubuque Street and
Lafayette Street that will be consolidated to the south side of the site along Lafayette Street. In
terms of pedestrian access, there will be multiple points of pedestrian access on South
Dubuque Street and one on Lafayette as well as new public parking in the South Dubuque
Street right-of-way. Staff has recommended that they be metered to assist with turnover and
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 22 of 27
provide parking for surrounding properties. Lehmann explained staff is not recommending that
as a condition of approval for this special exception because it is being covered through other
planning processes. Therefore, staff has found that adequate measures are being taken to
minimize traffic congestion, based on these findings.
The sixth criterion is that the special exception otherwise abides by all applicable criteria as
Lehmann noted earlier, staff has other processes such as design review, site plan review and
building permit review where they check these things so staff believes those will be met or
reviewed at that time in more detail. Currently staff doesn't see concerns with what is on the site
plan. The applicant is also requesting an administrative height bonus, so those policies will have
to be followed as part of the process.
The final criteria is if the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Lehmann explained for this area, the Comprehensive Plan shows mixed use. This would be a
residential use, but it is still a mix of uses throughout the area. Additionally, the proposal fulfills
the goal to identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas
where services and infrastructure already place. The Plan also talks about encouraging
pedestrian oriented development, making it safe, convenient and comfortable to walk and this
redevelopment would do that. In the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Plan, which is more
specifically applicable, the Central Crossings District talks about promoting new housing options
and restoring and enhancing the conditions along Ralston Creek.
Lehmann stated staff didn't receive any written correspondence regarding this but noted they
had a phone call regarding the application from a nearby property owner who wasn't sure the
parking reduction was sufficiently justified and suggested that the number of units be reduced or
that there be other mitigation measures to offset parking. The person declined to provide a
written comment and were comfortable providing verbal comments. Lehmann didn't feel
comfortable going into any more detail about the caller's thoughts.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0002, to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50
percent for the properties located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220
Lafayette Street, subject to the following condition:
1. City Council approval of VAC20-0003.
Chrischilles noted at the beginning, Lehmann stated to request a reduction in parking, the
applicant had to demonstrate special characteristics. What were those special characteristics
that they brought forth. Lehmann replied they noted the purpose was for housing for University
of Iowa students. The verbiage is that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the
number of parking spaces required is excessive. The specific use they're pointing to is purpose-
built housing for University of Iowa students.
Chrischilles asked how much on -street parking is going to be created on Dubuque Street and
how many businesses are still there in the surrounding area that would benefit from additional
parking on the street.
Parker replied not many, there is a law office, a bike store with a dance studio in back.
Lehmann added there is a building across the street that appears to be light industrial which is
making improvements, they look like they currently use on -street parking.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 23 of 27
Chrischilles asked if this property goes through, will the additional on -street parking definitely
happen or is that just a possibility. Lehmann replied the application is currently under design
review so the amount of on -street parking is unknown at this time but their site plans shows 18
stalls. Lehmann believes it will probably be less than that, but that's under design review right
now and being worked out.
Hazell noted staff mentioned they're looking at a reduction to 203 parking spots, is that just in
the underground parking or does that include the on -street parking. Lehmann confirmed the
public parking spaces do not count towards their onsite parking, and on -street public parking
was omitted from staff recommendations because it will be decided during site review.
Carlson asked about the metered parking on the street, and if Lehmann knew what the time limit
will be, short-term parking or a longer -term parking or has that been decided at this point.
Lehmann can't speak to that.
Carlson noted if they are going to provide 203 parking spaces in the underground parking that is
only a reduction of 48% so why does the staff report recommend a reduction of 50%. If the
Board approves it a 50% reduction, they can further reduce the number of parking spaces
underground. Lehmann said if there was a 50% parking reduction, they must have 193 spaces
and are proposing 203. Staff recommends a reduction of 50% because there has been a couple
versions of the application as they change unit mixes and none of that is set in stone until they
finalize their project, so 50% is approximately what would accommodate the use. Usually staff
would recommend aiming slightly above in case there are slight changes in the future.
However, if the Board wants to do exactly 48 percent or whatever the exact amount would be
for 203, that would be their decision as they decide on the special exception.
Chrischilles asked if there has been any requests for financial assistance from the City on this
project. Lehmann replied he is not aware of any.
Parker asked about the Ralston Creek pedestrian improvements and would there be a tunnel
going through the rail bridge as part of it or is it just the sidewalk. Lehmann stated that is not
part of the project. Parker assumes that's the right-of-way of the railroad which Lehmann
confirmed. Parker asked where the nearest bus stop to the project is. Lehmann is not sure
exactly but most of downtown is within pretty close distance of a bus stop. He primarily look at
census tract information which shows pretty good bus ridership downtown, although walking
and biking are more popular modes of transportation. Lehmann pulled up the applicant's
appendix B which showed the project area and the nearby bus routes and walking routes. The
project area is about a block and a half from the bus stop. Parker noted they have to walk away
from downtown to the nearest stop so he doubts ridership would be popular. Lehmann agreed
and imagined it would be more walkers and bikers based on census data. When he was onsite,
he saw people walking which appeared to be the most apparent mode choice.
Carlson asked if there will there be a cost for parking at the building, has that been established
yet or how much will it be. Lehmann believes that the applicant can discuss that.
Parker noted most downtown residential rentals are usually around $200 per month to park a
car. Carlson noted in the applicant's report they say it's $150 at The Rise but is that per month,
then. Lehmann noted the applicants are nodding yes.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 24 of 27
Hazell asked about the Ralston Creek improvements and noticed they're not in the staff
recommendations as a requirement and is that because it's being required by other processes.
Lehmann confirmed those are in the conditional zoning agreement from when they rezoned to
Riverfront Crossings.
Carlson asked how they go about determining who rents the parking spaces, is it a first come,
first serve situation. Lehmann noted the applicant can answer that question and other similar
details about the project.
Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) first wanted to thank the Board for not deferring this item
and keeping it on the agenda tonight appreciating it's been a long meeting. He will try to answer
the questions that have been raised and talk a little about the project. On the parking reduction
percentage of the 48 versus 50%, when they were talking with staff and looking at the project,
they are not sure what is the final parking count that will happen for underground parking. As
they go through the design, the structural design comes later which may move a column or
adjust things and that impact a parking space, so that's why they're requesting a 50% reduction
in the application and not 48 because there's some potential for changes through the next six
months of designing. Regarding the pedestrian access on Ralston Creek and the tunnel through
the railroad, their direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff is to provide a
means for future connection, similar to the 225 East Prentiss project that was constructed a few
years ago. They built trail going south to the road, then perhaps a future City project would
make that actual connection between the two, so this is an opportunity to get that pedestrian
access put in place and ready if that future project ever comes to fruition. Welch discussed the
bus routes, noting the South Cambus route just northwest a block. The prediction is in nice
weather people will walk but on a rainy or cold day, ridership on Cambus probably will jump like
it does all across campus when looking at student usage and transportation modes. Regarding
the use case for unique circumstances, they looked at the distance to walk downtown from this
location compared to other sites on campus and around town and they felt it's compelling that
one, the front door is at the northwest corner of the property which is on Dubuque Street and the
railroad, meaning they're starting off at the top of the hill, not the bottom when they use that and
head downtown, and two, the walking distances are comparable to the residence halls on the
west side of campus coming downtown with a 12 to 15 minute walk depending on where they
are going on campus and downtown. To answer the question of on -street parking, they are in
the process of going through design review with City staff for the height bonus. They got
comments last week that staff is recommending on -street parking be parallel parking rather than
angled parking to preserve some of the green space that's there and actually increase it since
they're getting rid of driveways that come out on the street now and will be replaced by a more
typical parkway between the curb and the sidewalk, and then as part of that street trees will be
required as part of the landscaping plan.
Michael Apt (Gilbane Development) also thanked the Board for not deferring the case as time is
of the essence. He acknowledged this is student housing but Iowa City doesn't have a lot
pedestrian -only student housing, The Rise is probably the only one, this would be the second
one and he believes Capstone was also recently approved. Apt explained student housing is
different than the multifamily market rate type housing a lot of students and others live in where
they use a car to get to campus and to downtown. This project location enables them to walk or
ride their bikes if they prefer, the Cambus is just a few blocks north of the property and will
provide access to residents all around campus. Students who bring a car to campus often park
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 25 of 27
it and don't use it for sometimes weeks at a time. There are University long-term parking for
students where they park their car and take the Cambus back to their residences, so that is also
an option for students. Apt also wanted to note Gilbane has done similar projects in the
Midwest. In Ames they have three and one has parking of 0.4 per bed, another is 0.13 per bed
and the third is 1.34 and they have less than 5% parking vacancy in the buildings. At the
University of Illinois in Champaign they have parking at 0.34 per bed but are 30% vacant. One is
at the University of Colorado Springs where their zoning made them have one parking space
per bed and those are 60% vacant. All the Gilbane projects are walkable to the University. Apt
wanted to note additionally the Iowa City Climate Action Plan stresses less parking and more
walkability, the need to be pedestrian friendly and use more public transportation. Lastly Apt
noted they have some other constraints on the site which play a role, they are going to stay
within the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan for the site, which is a six story building, they don't
really want to go up to eight stories. The ask for additional floors is because when looking at
having the parking underground from the top of Dubuque Street all the way down to Lafayette,
they need to make sure the water table from Ralston Creek doesn't prevent them from going an
additional story below ground but if it does they may end up doing one story underground and a
half a story above ground of parking that they believe is adequate for this facility. Regarding the
question of what they will charge for parking, whether it'll be in the rent or an extra fee, The Rise
charges $150 per space per month, they are not sure what their rate will be yet, but it will be in
agreement with what the market is now. The spaces all will be on a first come, first serve but he
is not sure that they're going to be able to fill all the parking spaces with what is going on right
now in the other locations they've done student housing. They believe the reduction and
providing between 193 and 203 parking spaces is more than sufficient for a student housing
project like this so close to the University and the downtown. Apt confirmed they are not asking
for any financial assistance from the City to do this project.
Hazell asked for confirmation that the vacancy rates that Apt listed are vacancies for parking
and not units. Apt confirmed that was just on parking, they wouldn't be in business if those were
unit vacancies. A typically student housing like this adjacent to the University is 100% every
semester, during COVI D some of them took a little bit of hit but they're going to bounce back.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Parker moved for approval of EXC21-0002, an application submitted by Axiom
Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting a special exception to reduce
the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for a multi -family redevelopment project
at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street.
Hazell seconded the motion.
Parker stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the
staff report of this meeting date, April 14, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied as amended by staff during the presentation 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. seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2021
Page 26 of 27
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 ITEM EXC21-0003 & 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 #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street.
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.
Chrischilles moved to defer these two items indefinitely.
Hazell seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
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.
CONSIDER THE MARCH 10, 2020 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of March 10, 2021. Parker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-1-0 (Carlson abstained due to not being present).
ADJOURNMENT:
Hazell moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
H
z
W
2
H
0
Q
LL
O
0
Q
O
m
OC
O
u
W
w
W o
V N
z o
Q N
0
z
W
H
H
Q
X
i
X
X
X
X
o
W
M
�
O
co
N
X
X
X
X
,
O
co
�
O
i
X
o
O
'
L
X
X
X
ti
o
X
X
LLI
X
XCN
,
ti
ftftftft
X
X
XLO
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
'
ftftftftX
Ln
,
co
X
X
N
X
w
O
w
O
co
X
X
X
w
O
X
'
a
X
W
o
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
M
CO
M
M
M
M
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
z
W
0
w
J
2
C�
OC
W
z
W
k
Q
=
a-
W
N
J
W
W
m
W
�
Q
cli
MLU
O
~
LU
C�
a
z
z
CO
a
=
O
a
a
w
a
z
v
v=
a
a
v