HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-30-2021 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Electronic Informal 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://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwvfu2qrmsiE9DO4SWqOd
1d9kYgPmtTNN9T. 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 882-9480-0894 when
prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Board of Adjustment Training
Training for members of the Board of Adjustment on their role and procedures.
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 9, 2021
5. 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-Iehmann@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.
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
=� MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/6/2020
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMNET
FROM: SUSAN DULEK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYj
RE: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
INTRODUCTION
This memo provides guidance to the Chair and members on the public hearing process for applications
for special exceptions.
STANDARDS AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Many applications for a special exception are fairly routine and limited in terms of the evidence and
witnesses, but some are complicated and/or contentious.
The applicant has the burden to prove each and every standard. If you find yourself wanting or needing
more information or evidence on a particular issue during your deliberation, then you must ask
yourself -Has the applicant proven the standard? The burden, meaning the responsibility, to put forth
evidence sufficient to prove each and every standard by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than
not), is on the applicant
Although you receive a packet in advance of the hearing, there Is at times a tremendous amount of
information that is provided at the hearing. Undoubtedly, you may wish for additional time to read it,
study it, and consider it
The Board is under no legal requirement to vote on an application at the time of the hearing. The
Board can vote by motion to close the public hearing but defer the Board discussion until another
meeting. Also the Board can vote by motion to continue the public hearing to another meeting at which
time more evidence can be taken. Although the applicant may be In a °time crunch,' that legally is of
no concern to the Board. If the Board needs more time, a motion should be passed to allow more time
to consider the application.
If you conclude that the applicant has not proven a particular standard, you should state why you
conclude that the standard has not been met If three members agree that a standard has not been
met, than the special exoeptlon wlll not be approved.
If you conclude that the applicant has proven a particular standard but for reams either different from
or in addition to those in the staff report, you should state what fact or facts support your conclusion, ff
you agree with a colleague's factual finding, you should state that you do. At least three members
need to agree on the fads that support each of the findings.
When a decision approving a special exception Is appealed to the district court, the Judge will review
the transcript of the hearing and will look for the facts given by Board members to support their
decision. The Judge reviews the hearing transcript and any written documents submitted at the hearing
to determine N there was substantial evidence to support the decision, not whether the Judge would
have made that same decision. When a decision denying a special exception is appealed to the district
court, the Judge will similarly look for the reasons given by the Board members for why they concluded
that a standard was not met. Again, the Judge does not substitute his or her decision for the Board's
but rather determines if there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. (I should add
that there are other bases to appeal but generally the issue Is whether there is substantial evidence.)
Up until the public hearing is closed, the process outlined below for "routine" applications is the same
as for °non -routine' applications. What is different is the "findings of fact" portion of the meeting.
"ROUTINE" APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
CHAIR This i!� an application submitted by XYZ for a special exception to allow.....
CHAIR: Will someone make a motion to approve the special exception? (The Chair may not make or
second any motion. This motion gets the matter on the floor for discussion.)
BOA: I move for the approval of EXC20->>......
CHAIR: Is there a second?
BOA: Second.
CHAIR: The public hearing is open.
(The Board should not discuss the merits or offer their opinions until the close of the public
hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Board to gaffiw all the information and then
make a decision.)
CHAIR: We will now hear from staff.
STAFF: This is a request for a special exception to allow ... at 123 Main Street....
CHAIR: Does the Board have any questions for staff?
CHAIR: We will now hear from the applicant.
APPLICANT: My name is ......
(Speakers should come to the podium, sign in, introduce themselves with full name and
address, and speak into the microphone.)
CHAIR: Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak against the application?
CHAIR: Does the applicant wish to respond to any comments from the public?
CHAIR: Does staff have any additional comments?
CHAIR: Are there any Issues on which the Board wishes to have more clarity --any final questions for
staff or the applicant before the public hearing is closed?
CHAIR: The public hearing Is closed.
CHAIR: Any discussion from the Board?
CHAIR: Will someone make the findings of fact?
BOA: Regarding item EXC20.>>, I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report dated and
conclude......
CHAIR: Any other comments from the Board before we vote?
CHAIR: Roll call (City staff will call the roll)
CHAIR: The Motion is declared approved. Any person desiring 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.
"NON -ROUTINE" APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
(As stated earlier, do not dose the public hearing N Board members want more information. A
Board member will need to move to keep the public hearing open and defer consideration of the
applicatlon to the next meeting, another member will need to second the motion, and More
needs to be 3 votes in favor of keeping the public hewrrg open and deferrtt►g the application to
the next meeting.)
CHAIR: The public hearing is closed.
CHAIR: Discussion from the Board.
BOA: (This is the time that the Board discusses the problematic standard(s). Again, it's usually one
standard that poses issues. In order for the application to be approved, at least 3 members wfN
need to set forth the facts that support aN the standards, including the problematic one. I advise
Board members to state one or two facts that you found to demonstrate why the particular
standard at issue was met In contrast, if three members conclude a standard is not met, even
for dNferent reasons, those 3 members will vote no on the application. AN 3 should state what
standard was not met. For example, a member could state. "I concur wife the findings set forth
in the staff report dated_ except for the specific standard X' I conclude that specific
standard X was not met." If two other members agree that standard X was not met, the
application will be denied.
CHAIR: Any other comments from the Board before we vote?
CHAIR: Roll call (City staff will call the roll)
CHAIR: The Motion is declared denied (if one standard is not met) or approved (if all standards are
met). Any person desiring 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,
Copy to:
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING PROCESS
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
GENERAL ORDER OF EVENTS
When considering an application:
Chair announces the item.
• Chair opens public hearing and turns it over to staff.
Staff presents their review.
Applicant may speak about the application.
Public may comment for or against the application.
• Board may ask any final questions to staff/applicant.
� r
®1��
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
• Chair/members "take the temperature" to determine if more information is needed such that
the public hearing should be continued and the application deferred to the next meeting.
If more information is needed, a member other than the chair needs to move to continue the
public hearing and defer consideration to the next meeting.
• If not, Chair closes public hearing.
A non -chair board member motions to approve the application, another seconds (see below).
Based on what was said during the public hearing, Board discusses the application including
whether to make any changes to the findings of fact or the conditions contained in the staff
report.
Board votes to approve with or without conditions, or to deny the application (see below and
next page). Board may also defer consideration to the next meeting.
MOTION TO CONSIDER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
After the Chair closes the public hearing, a motion and second allows for discussion by the Board.
This puts the special exception application `on the table." It does not mean that the Board member
will vote in favor of the application. Under the bylaws, the Chair can neither move nor second.
I move the approval of EXC20-_ [the description of the special exception as written on the
agenda].
NO CHANGE TO FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT
Regarding item EXC20-_, I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of [meeting
date] and conclude that the general and specific standards are satisfied. Unless amended
or opposed by another Board member, I recommend that the Board adopt the findings in
the staff report for the approval of this special exception.
2 other members need to agree with this.
Rev. June 2020
CHANGING FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE STAFF REPORT (ADD/REMOVE/AMEND)
During Board discussion after the public hearing is closed, note any changes you would like to see
to the findings of fact in the staff report based on what was said during the public hearing, any
written submissions, and your own common sense.
Regarding item EXC20-_ , I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of [meeting
date] and conclude that the general and specific standards are satisfied with one exception.
I find that [state the finding that should be added/removed/amended and
why]. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, I recommend that the Board
adopt the findings in the staff report along with this modification for approval of this special
exception.
2 other members need to agree with this.
CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT (ADD/REMOVE/AMEND)
During Board discussion after the public hearing is closed, note any changes you would like to see
to the findings of fact in the staff report based on what was said during the public hearing, any
written submissions, and your own common sense.
Regarding item EXC20-_ , I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report of [meeting
date] and conclude that the general and specific standards are satisfied with one exception.
I recommend [adding/removing/amending] the following condition: [state
the condition that needs to be added/removed/amended and why]. Unless amended or
opposed by another Board member, I recommend that the Board adopt the findings in the
staff report with this [additional condition/condition removed/modified condition] for approval
of this special exception.
2 other members need to agree to this.
DENIAL -STANDARD IS NOT PROVEN
Regarding item EXC20-_ , I conclude that the standard of
standard] has not been proven by a preponderance of evidence.
(state the
If 2 other members agree that a standard has not been met (i.e., there is not a preponderance of
evidence), even for different reasons, the 3 members will vote no and the special exception must
be denied.
Rev. June 2020
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
JUNE 9, 2021 — 5:15 PM
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
PRELIMINARY
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, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius, Mark Russo
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Taylor Hall, Julie Yaney
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0005:
An application 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.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann explained the applicant is submitting this application on behalf of US Bank for a drive -
through lane for the ATM. It's not the ATM that's triggering the special exception but rather the
drive -through lane. The proposed facility will replace 10 existing parking spaces just south of
the intersection of Lower Muscatine Road and Mall Drive, the parcel is large as it's the Iowa City
Marketplace site. The proposed facility is small, only about 2600 square feet. Lehmann
showed the site plan with the entire parcel involved and the smaller area that will actually be
affected by the application. Lehmann noted the surrounding uses as mostly commercial, to the
north is Oral-B, to the east are some commercial uses, including an insurance firm and
cleaners, and to the south and the west is Iowa City Marketplace which has three buildings
including the Marketplace building itself to the south and the McDonalds building to the
northwest. Most surrounding uses are also zoned CC-2 (which is Community Commercial),
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 2 of 10
though there is industrial zoning to the north where Oral-B is located.
Lehmann showed images of the proposed ATM site plan and where the drive through lane is to
the northeast of the ATM with stacking space for three cars. It follows the same traffic flow
where it would be a right-hand turn from the adjacent traffic lane for those going northwest, and
for those going southeast they'd have to do a left-hand turn. There is a sidewalk that runs to the
northwest of the facility with a pedestrian crossing just to the west of it which is discussed in the
staff report. Lehmann showed images as to what the site looks like today and the parking lanes
that will be affected and then a rendering of what the applicant believes the ATM will look like.
He pointed out in the image there isn't any screening in the foreground but in the site plan they
include screening.
The role of the Board of Adjustment is to approve, approve with conditions or denying the
application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception, the Board must find
that it meets all applicable approval criteria, which includes both specific standards pertaining to
the waiver requested, in this case drive -through lanes, and then also general standards for all
special exceptions.
Lehmann stated for drive -through facilities there are three sets of standards related to access
and circulation, location, and design standards. First access and circulation states the
transportation system has to be capable of safely supporting the use, in addition to existing uses
in the area. Staff looks at things like street capacity, level of service, effects on traffic circulation,
access, separation of curb cuts and pedestrian safety, there are a couple criteria involved. The
first is that wherever possible and practical drive -through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or are shared cross access drives. Lehmann noted the property has
two vehicular access points from Lower Muscatine Road to the northeast and one from
Sycamore Street to the west. There are shared cross access drives that provide circulation
between these points and to the buildings on the site and generally this proposed facility would
be accessed through one of these shared cross access drives through a surface parking lot, the
most likely access point would be from the closest intersection by Mall Drive and Lower
Muscatine Road. The drive -through facility itself is a one-way moving from southeast to
northwest and would flow with the adjacent traffic through the site. In terms of pedestrian
access, Lehmann pointed out sidewalks along part of Lower Muscatine Road and one on
Sycamore Street, the one on Lower Muscatine Road ends in front of the facility but crosses at
the parking lot access point that's most likely to be used by this drive -through facility.
Lehmann stated the second criterion is to provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number
and width of curb cuts serving the use must be limited. Any new curb cuts are subject to City
Standards. Staff finds that there are no changes the curb cuts being proposed and that the
nearest existing pedestrian route is located northwest of the proposed drive -through facility and
shouldn't be significantly impacted by the facility. Staff does want to note that there may be
additional traffic where the pedestrian route crosses the entrance of the parking lot, but traffic
speeds are low in a parking lots, visibility is pretty good, and the pedestrian pathway is clearly
demarcated with colored pavement so staff doesn't anticipate issues.
Lehmann moved onto the next criterion which is related to the number of stacking spaces. The
recommended number for non-food related drive -through facilities (like banks) is four, but the
Board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant can
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 3 of 10
demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that the recommended
number of stacking spaces is excessive. Lehmann noted in this case the concept plan shows a
drive -through lane with three stacking spaces, which is one shorter than recommended. Staff
believes that the recommended number is excessive due to the characteristics of an ATM which
generally has shorter transaction times than a lot of other uses. Staff also looked at the peak
hour volumes provided by the applicant for the month of May and generally peak hours appear
to be 1 pm to 5pm on weekdays and a little longer, 10am and 5pm, on weekends, with heaviest
use on Fridays and Saturdays. When looking at peak hour times, less than 3% of those hour-
long time slots have 10 users or less, the highest volume was 19 users, which occurred one
time over that month. At its highest volume, the potential average wait time for vehicles in those
three stacking spaces is around nine and a half minutes, the average is about three minutes
nine seconds per user. Lehmann also noted the parking drive aisle can accommodate some
potential spillover traffic if it's needed and traffic speeds are low enough to maintain safety.
The fourth is that sufficient on -site signage and pavement marketing shall be provided to
indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas and
other controls for safe movement. Lehmann acknowledged the concept plan indicates pavement
markings with directional arrows in the drive -through lane specifying enter only at the entrance
and exit only at the exit. Existing striping will be removed, and new striping will be provided to
distinguish the drive -through lane from the former parking spaces. Lehmann noted the concept
plan does not include signage, so staff recommends a condition to install a "do not enter, sign at
the drive -through exit to ensure safe vehicular movement. With the staff recommendation, staff
believes that the proposed use will have sufficient onsite controls to guide traffic.
Lehmann stated the second set of criteria is related to location. The relevant location standard is
that the drive -through lanes and service windows should be located on the non -street facing
facade. However, it doesn't have to be if the applicant can demonstrate that the street facing
location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, and it does not conflict with
the adjacent uses or pedestrian access and does not compromise character at the streetscape
or neighborhood which it is located. Staff finds the drive -through lane is on the street facing
facade parallel with Lower Muscatine Road, but believes that the layout is preferable because it
allows right turn access for the adjacent traffic lane. There will be some left turn access but they
would have to yield anyway so it makes sense to have the right turn access for that adjacent
lane. Staff doesn't believe that the drive -through lane will compromise the character of the
streetscape or nearby uses. Nearby uses are commercial and the drive -through lane will
replace existing surface parking, which is an automobile -oriented use so it's similar. In addition,
there will be additional landscaping that will be required and will act as a visual buffer for the
street. Lehmann reiterated the location won't affect pedestrian access, so staff believes this
criterion is met.
The next criteria is that the drive -through lane must be set back 10 feet from the adjacent lot
lines and rights -of -way, and also screened from view. Lehmann noted the drive -through lane is
set back more than 10 feet from Lower Muscatine Road, and it will be screen to the S2
standard, as noted on the site plan.
The third set of criteria are related to design standards and mostly tied to making sure that the
facility won't be detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt
pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area in which is located. Lehmann
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 4 of 10
stated the first sub criteria for this is to promote compatibility with surrounding development, the
number of drive -through lanes should be limited, such that the amount of paving and stacking
spaces doesn't diminish the design quality of the streetscape or safety pedestrian realm. In this
case no new paving is being proposed as part of the project because it will replace existing 10
parking spaces. Regarding screening, it is required between the drive -through lane and Lower
Muscatine Road right-of-way and there is an existing tree, which should be retained if possible.
The nearest pedestrian walkway is delineated with color pavements that helps maintain safety
for pedestrians. Lehmann noted there is no pedestrian pathway along that green space between
the drive -through facility and Lower Muscatine Road so some space should be reserved for a
future connection but staff believes that mostly could be accommodated within the right-of-way.
Finally, the proposed facility will not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety
of the pedestrian environment.
Second, the facility must be screened to the S2 standard. In this case the drive -through facility
is not adjacent to residential uses, it's all commercial uses with industrial to the north.
Landscaping along Lower Muscatine Road shall be provided at the S2 standard as shown on
the concept plan.
Third is to consider multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane to reduce idling. Lehmann
stated in this case the drive -through facility is an ATM and anticipated through -put is quick,
about two minutes according to the applicants, so multiple machines are not necessary to
reduce the amount of idling on site.
Four, stacking spaces, driveways and drive -through lanes shall be located to minimize potential
for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into surrounding landscape and
streetscape. Lehmann acknowledged there may be some additional traffic where the
pedestrian route crosses the entrance to the parking lot but no new pedestrian conflicts are
created, traffic speeds again are low, drive visibility is good and the pathways are clearly
demarcated so that should help protect pedestrians who cross this area. Additionally, vehicular
conflicts are reduced by having the proposed ATM separate the drive -through lane from the
parking drive aisle. Staff also recommends some additional physical separation by using
something like a curb, planter boxes, or some other similar control devices to be approved by
the City Engineer. Lehmann reiterated that the immediate area is commercial in nature, so it's
less sensitive but the screening will help soften the appearance. Also, the proposed facility will
replace existing parking spaces, so it will be somewhat visually similar as an auto -oriented use.
Fifth, lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards.
Lehmann noted the concept plan proposes one overhead light with two led fixtures, but staff will
review this through the site plan review process, and so it will have to comply.
Lehmann noted criteria six has been rescinded by Council. Seven is that loudspeakers and
intercom systems if allowed should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent
uses. Lehmann explained no loudspeakers or intercom systems are proposed and the ATM will
only include a keypad tone and won't include ambient advertising or any miscellaneous sounds.
Lehmann next discussed the seven general standards that staff reviews. The first is that the
specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. Staff doesn't believe that the proposed drive -through facility will
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 5 of 10
substantially increase vehicular traffic to the site, and it is near other commercial uses and
vehicular circulation and access is adequate to accommodate that use as long as it conforms to
the concept plan, so staff recommends that as a condition of approval. Staff acknowledges that
the ATM provides a physical barrier, but is again recommending additional physical barriers
such as planter boxes, to provide some additional separation where traffic may be generated
and where that pedestrian pathway crosses. Overall staff doesn't believe that there will be any
detriment to or endangerment of the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
Second, that it won't injure the use of or enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity
or effect property values. Lehmann noted the proposed facility is compatible with surrounding
uses, which are commercial, it will replace existing parking lots with which are already auto
oriented, screening will mitigate impacts to the streetscape in addition to properties to the east
and the proposed to use is far enough away from existing businesses so any increase in traffic
should not have a negative effect. As a result, staff doesn't believe that it will injure the use
surrounding properties or negatively impact property values.
Third criterion is will it affect normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property. The area is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and industrial uses so
staff doesn't believe that the future redevelopment and improvement will be affected.
Next is have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities been
provided. Lehmann stated sufficient utilities, access roads and necessary facilities are
established for this neighborhood and can meet the proposed requirements. Pedestrian access
will be maintained from the right-of-way through the property and internal vehicular circulation is
sufficient. Again, there will be screening to the S2 standard between the drive -through facility
and Lower Muscatine Road, and the existing tree should be incorporated into the screening.
Fifth, that there's adequate measures to provide ingress or egress to minimize traffic congestion
on public streets. In this case access is from internal circulation drives. There are three stacking
spaces to accommodate the use and additional overflow space within the parking drive. The
proposed facility will not affect public streets and pavement markings are shown on the concept
plan and will help efficiently direct vehicles through the site. Staff is recommending some
signage as a condition of approval.
Sixth is that the proposed use otherwise conforms to the standards of the zone. Lehmann stated
the primary consideration was the effect of the reduction of parking spaces, but parking is more
than adequate on the site and the loss of 10 spaces does not affect its minimum parking. Staff
will ensure all other applicable zoning standards and regulations are followed during the site
plan review process.
Finally is the proposed exception consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is shown
as general commercial in both the Comprehensive Plan and in the Southeast District Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan also supports encouraging the retention and expansion of existing
businesses and the use is consistent with the existing uses, so staff believes that is consistent
with the Comprehensive and District Plans.
Based on these findings 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
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 6 of 10
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.
Taylor Hall (PM Design Group, Inc) is representing the applicant and stated no real commentary
to add to this project, they acknowledge the conditions and are prepared to make those
changes. They feel this is a good location for the ATM and would work closely with staff to make
sure they are meeting all the conditions laid out.
Julie Yaney (Stratus Group) is with the general contractors and had a couple questions
regarding some of the conditions. As far as US Bank is concerned the planter boxes that are
being requested, she is assuming those have some landscaping and who would be responsible
for maintaining that landscaping, could they ask the landlord to do it.
Lehmann stated staff is recommending physical separation and in their conversations with the
applicant they've suggested planter boxes is a good option for that. As to who would maintain it,
that would be decided between the applicant and the landlord or the owner of the lot.
Yaney asked what type of plantings will be needed for screening, will staff be specific on that so
that they can make sure to meet that criteria. Hall noted the City Zoning Code outlines the S2
standard, as well as the other landscaping standards, so they can review that.
Yaney also asked for clarification on the address, is the whole shopping center 1660 Sycamore
because she has the address for their ATM to be 1660 Sycamore. Lehmann replied when staff
looks at parcels the property address that comes up first is 1600 Sycamore Street but there are
extra addresses associated with this parcel that includes 1604 and those would be suite A and
suite B. He imagines they're all associated and imagines typically any of those addresses
would be adequate to apply the parcel.
Dulek noted before the Board closes the public hearing regarding the question about the
maintenance of the planter if the Board includes that condition, they should state whether they
want the applicant to maintain it or not and if they are giving the applicant the exception,
presumably, it would be incumbent upon them to maintain it but that's the Board's call.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion.
Parker moved for approval 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.
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 7 of 10
Russo seconded the motion.
Pretorius stated they may want to clarify involvement of who will maintain the planter box.
Carlson stated she drove down through the parking lot today and thinks the applicant needs to
be the one who take who maintains the planter box as some of the landscape areas in the
parking lot today were maintained and some of them were not.
Pretorius asked if the Board should add that as a condition, that the applicants are required to
maintain the planter boxes. Carlson is in favor of doing so.
Carlson noted she is also concerned about the placement of this ATM at this particular location
and thinks there would be a much better, safer location. When mall was built in the 70s the
circulation of travel and a major street went up to the mall itself, and then it went toward Lower
Muscatine Road, but things have really changed since then. That parking lot is now a cut
through from the Mall Drive to Panera, the dollar store or Planet Fitness in the back. People cut
through that parking lot all the time, both directions, instead of traffic going up to the mall. The
parking lot is 21 or 23 acres, and they need 2600 square feet, so it seems there could be a
better place that would not add to the congestion already in that area. Carlson noted although
there are stop signs there it is still very congested. An ATM is used is during lunchtime and
suppertime and that's the major time when McDonald's and Panera have most of their business
and she is concerned about traffic jams there. Therefore, she would not vote for this placement.
Dulek stated Carlson will need to point out a particular standard that is not being met. Carlson
stated the standards that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public
health, safety, or welfare and also the standard regarding adequate measures have been or will
be taken to provide ingress or egress are not met. Her reasoning is it's a one-way access point
from southeast to northwest and someone coming in off Lower Muscatine Road will have to turn
it the parking lot and then turn again, and then make a left hand turn against traffic coming
towards them and have to wait to make another left hand turn to get into the drive -through.
Because of the fact that this is used as a cut through from that entrance to the stores such as
Panera and the dollar store there will be conflicts, although it is a low amount of traffic. Carlson
feels a better location for the ATM would be the second entrance on Mall Drive, to the north,
where one could go in one direction and come back out another direction which would be safer
and wouldn't have as much traffic conflicts with cars coming from different directions.
Pretorius noted the mall parking lot was probably more packed in previous times than it is today
after it lost flagship stores. Bringing in an ATM to a visible location like this could help drive
traffic to this commercial space again, which is a good thing. Making sure the ATM is in a
visible place that is close to the mall is good. Pretorius also feels it has been designed to not be
too close to the parking spots that are really being utilized when people try to go shopping.
While there may be better locations, this is probably one of the better locations, and she doesn't
personally know that the Mall is ever going to be that congested to feel this isn't safe.
Russo asked if it's not in the public right-of-way then essentially that's the property of whoever
owns the mall so doesn't the question of traffic control lie at the owner's doorstep, as opposed
to the city's and it would be incumbent upon them if there is confusion. He would bet there is
confusion about egress and access in that whole area, what lane to take and what not to take,
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 8 of 10
and shouldn't that be more on the mall owner then on the City.
Pretorius agreed and stated every time they do one of these exceptions, they come with very
specific findings that are always very boilerplate about safety or whatnot, so it's always a
concern and part of the decision has to be based on the issue of the safety, wellness, health,
etc. So the Board has to weigh in on that, but yes technically, the engineers, City admin and
planning and development have given their recommendation the Board just has to make sure
that they are in agreement with that recommendation, or they didn't miss something.
Russo noted his point simply is that if there is confusion in the direction of traffic that is maybe
something that the ownership needs to take up. He has never seen a car parked in that corner
so from that standpoint it seems to make sense.
Carlson agrees that as far as visibility that's a great location and there are a lot of positive things
about it, her major concern is the safety of the people who are in their vehicles trying to get from
one place to another. At the time that the mall was built this area was really a dead zone as far
as parking goes but now the amount of traffic that cuts through there is a lot.
Parker stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0005 he does concur with the findings set forth in
the staff report of this meeting date, June 9, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied with one addition of US Bank and not the landlord is to be responsible for
the plantings in the planter boxes. So unless amended or opposed by another board member,
he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this
proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-1 (Carlson dissenting).
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
CONSIDER THE APRIL 14, 2020 MINUTES:
Lehmann noted that there were some edits to the minutes on page 15 from what was sent to
Council to clarify language, that was incorporated as a request of David Moore, who was the
applicant for APL21- 0001, specifically clarifying that he did not say Oliveira would not build a
two-story building, he said Oliveira would not build a three-story building if he did not get the
minor modification.
Parker moved to approve the minutes of April 14, 2021 with the edit. Carlson seconded the
motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Lehmann noted the City is going into the transition period as to whether meetings will be in
person or on zoom and wanted to get the Board's input on having in person meetings versus
Board of Adjustment
June 9, 2021
Page 9 of 10
zoom meetings. The Council is going back to in person meetings on July 1 and staff will be in
offices on July 1 but Boards and Commissions can decide what they prefer.
Parker noted he would prefer zoom.
Pretorius doesn't have a preference but admitted zoom is a little bit more convenient.
Russo stated he is fine with either, as is Carlson.
Lehmann stated he did try to get some clarification prior to this meeting, so he could give a
more meaningful update, and perhaps they will do a hybrid of some in -person, some on zoom,
he will keep the Board posted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Russo moved to adjourn this meeting, Carlson seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Lu
20
H CU
W N
LLJ
O
aVo
Z
LL
CV
OWN
Z
W
aF-
Oa
m
W
I
i
x
x
x
x
O
i
m
x
i
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
M
i
OGo
w
N
x
x
x
x
O
I
I
x
x
x
x
"
o
o
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
n
O
L LI
x
x
x
x
O
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
N
i
i
x
x
x
x
x
;
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
O
O
x
x
x
x
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
F- W
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
z
W
}
C7
z
W
>
U
W
=
%
Q
Q
Y
[Lwy
z
-i
W
W
Lb
Q
N
m
=
U
W
LU
W
Cl)
W
Y
0
J
N
z
U
L)
2
a
d
U
d'
v
Y