HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-14 BOA UPDATED Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - REVISED PACKET
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 5:15 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Appeal Item
a.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. REVISIONS MADE REGARDING THIS
CASE ARE SHOWN ON THE APL21-0001 UPDATED COVER SHEET
4.Special Exception Items
a.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.
b.EXC21-0003: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special
exception to allow drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy-Vee #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street.
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://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYvdeyurDspHtwPWUIUVCw0HUro
ksa-mpqw. 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 922-2562-0348 when
prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
c.EXC21-0004: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special
exception to allow drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy-Vee #1 located at 1720 Waterfront Drive.
5.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 10, 2021
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: May 12 / June 9 / July 14
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
UPDATED COVER SHEET
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: APL21-0001
Parcel Number: 1010162004
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: April 14, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant(s)/Contact: David Moore
425 E. Davenport Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
David_lysa@yahoo.com
Property Owner(s): Prestige Properties Development LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: To overturn a decision of the Building Official to
approve a Minor Modification reducing the required
7 foot side setback along the north property line by
2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot.
Purpose: To maintain the 7 foot side setback requirement.
Location: 319 N. Van Buren Street
Location Map:
Size: 2,800 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant; Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(RNS-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with Conservation District
Overlay (RNS12-OCD)
2
East: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12)
South: Residential; Commercial Office (CO-1)
West: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with Conservation District
Overlay (RNS12-OCD)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-1: Minor Modifications
File Date: February 9, 2021
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map, PDF p. 7-88
2.Zoning Map, PDF p. 9-100
3.Memo Regarding Staff Decision and Attachments, PDF p. 11-72
4.Appeal Application – includes materials not previously in the packet, PDF p. 73-98
5.Neighborhood Mailing Materials, PDF p. 99-104
6.Correspondence – includes materials not previously in the packet, PDF p. 105-1277
1
COVER SHEET
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: APL21-0001
Parcel Number: 1010162004
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: April 14, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant(s)/Contact: David Moore
425 E. Davenport Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
David_lysa@yahoo.com
Property Owner(s): Prestige Properties Development LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: To overturn a decision of the Building Official to
approve a Minor Modification reducing the required
7 foot side setback along the north property line by
2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot.
Purpose: To maintain the 7 foot side setback requirement.
Location: 319 N. Van Buren Street
Location Map:
Size: 2,800 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant; Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
(RNS-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with Conservation District
Overlay (RNS12-OCD)
Superceded
2
East: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-12)
South: Residential; Commercial Office (CO-1)
West: Residential; Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential with Conservation District
Overlay (RNS12-OCD)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-1: Minor Modifications
File Date: February 9, 2021
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Memo Regarding Staff Decision and Attachments
4.Appeal Application
5.Neighborhood Mailing Materials
Superceded
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Prepared by Staff
N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STE BLOOMINGTON ST
E DAVENPORT ST
APL21-0001319 N. Van Buren St.µ
0 0.015 0.030.0075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An appeal submitted by Dave Moore to overturn a decision of the Building Official approving a Minor Modification reducing the required 7 foot side setback along the north property line by 2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot.
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Prepared by Staff
N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STE BLOOMINGTON ST
E DAVENPORT ST
RNS12
CB2
CO1
APL21-0001319 N. Van Buren St.µ
0 0.015 0.030.0075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An appeal submitted by Dave Moore to overturn a decision of the Building Official approving a Minor Modification reducing the required 7 foot side setback along the north property line by 2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot.
Legend
Overlay Zones
Conservation District (OCD)
Design Review (ODR)
Historic District (OHD)
Planned Development (OPD)
CO1
RNS12
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 3
Memo Regarding Staff Decision
and Attachments
Prepared by Staff
Date: April 9, 2021
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Danielle Sitzman, Building Official & Development Services Coordinator
Re: Appeal of Minor Modification Case Number MOD20-0009, 319 N. Van Buren
Street
BACKGROUND:
Minor Modification Generally
The Zoning Code allows the Building Official to grant modifications from a list of specific standards
if the proposed development meets certain criteria and continues to meet the intended purpose
of those regulations. This list of changes that can be considered and the amount they may be
changed are itemized as Minor Modifications in Section 14 4B-1A of the City Code. Minor
Modifications are intended to provide flexibility for unusual situations for which strict application
of the regulations is impractical, but for which review by a Board or Commission is unnecessary.
Special Exceptions are similar to Minor Modifications, (but not as “minor”) and need to be
approved by the BOA rather than staff.
Minor Modifications require that an administrative hearing be held and that written notice to
surrounding property owners within 200’ of the subject property be sent ten (10) days prior to the
hearing. Following the hearing, the Building Official issues a written decision listing the findings
on which the decision was made and any conditions to be placed on the decision. The granting
of a Minor Modification is not grounds for granting other Minor Modifications for the same or
differing properties (Section 14-4B-1D).
Minor Modification on Appeal
On December 4, 2020, the property owner of 319 N. Van Buren Street applied for a Minor
Modification requesting a reduction in the required side setbacks along the north property line by
2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot based on Section 14-4B-1A-7:
Required setbacks from a side lot line may be reduced by up to two feet (2'), but in no case shall
a required setback from a side lot line be reduced to less than three feet (3'), unless the subject
side lot line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space.
The purpose was to accommodate construction of a new single-family dwelling. (See Attachment
1)
Notification letters were sent on December 11, 2020 and a public hearing was held on January 6,
2021. (See Attachment 2) On January 14, the Minor Modification was approved after finding it
met the applicable approval criteria. (See Attachment 3)
A neighboring property owner has appealed the decision granting the minor modification.
ANALYSIS:
Description of Lot
The property is an existing vacant, nonconforming lot containing 2,800 square f eet with
dimensions of 35' x 80'. It is part of the original town plat of Iowa City, is currently zoned
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12), and is outside of any historic preservation or
Page 2
conservation district or the Central Planning District. The RNS-12 zone is intended to stabilize
certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly single-family
residential character of these neighborhoods and preventing the conversion or redevelopment of
single-family uses to multi-family uses.
Setbacks
In the Municipal Code, a setback is the distance between a specified object, such as a building,
and another point, such as a lot line. For the subject property the side setback areas are those
that would be on the north and south sides of future structure.
According to Section 14-2A-4B. “Minimum Setback Requirements For Principal Buildings” the
minimum setback requirements are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting;
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings;
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the city's
neighborhoods;
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences;
and
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
For the subject property, the required minimum side setback is five (5) feet for the first two (2)
stories and an additional two (2) feet for each additional story. The overall height limit on
structures in this zoning district is 35 feet regardless of stories. The applicant was requesting a
reduction from the seven (7) foot setback requirement to five (5) feet on the north side and six (6)
feet on the south side in order to build a three-story dwelling.
There are no other design standards for single-family homes applicable to this property besides
the dimensional zoning standards in Section 14-2A-4 and the Single-Family Site Development
Standards in Section 14-2A-6.
DECISION:
The Building Official may approve an application for a Minor Modification, in whole or in part, with
or without conditions, only if the approval criteria are satisfied. The approval criteria can be
analogized to the standards that are required to be met in a special exception. The Minor
Modification was approved after finding it met the applicable approval criteria as follows.
1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography,
location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make
it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification
and/or waiver of the subject regulation.
Building Official Findings:
• Lots that are nonconforming due to their size being less than the minimum lot area
and/or lot width often constitute a special circumstance which makes it impractical
to comply with setback regulations. Nonconforming lots typically exist because
they were platted under prior zoning standards or before standards existed at all
(as in this case).
• It is unusual for non-conforming lots to be vacant and or redeveloped for single-
family uses. Only about one such in-fill project has occurred in each of the last
twenty years across the entire City.
• While Minor Modifications do not set precedent, similar practical difficulty findings
for setback reductions have been made for additions to existing buildings and less
commonly for new structures and are the reason the Minor Modification
administrative process exists.
• 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-sized plumbing fixtures.
Page 3
2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which
the property is located.
Building Official Findings:
• Alley access and use for the subject property is similar to other existing dwellings
along alleys in this neighborhood.
• Light, air, and opportunities for privacy will be maintained by the observation of
other dimensional standards of the zoning code and the inherent limit on the extent
of reduction allowed by Minor Modification of side setbacks.
• No assumption that neighboring properties “would make up the difference” for the
reduction was made.
• Many 2 and 3-story buildings are present in the blocks surrounding the subject
property including within the immediate 200-foot notification area. It is common
for such buildings to also not meet current setback requirements. As such, though
the proposal is uncommon, it generally reflects the building scale and placement
of structures in this area. (See Attachment 4)
• Buildings may be up to 35’ in height by right regardless of the number of stories in
this zoning district.
• Side setbacks of at least 5 feet from lot lines maintain separation for fire protection
and access for firefighting in accordance with Building Codes.
3. The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow
a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the
subject property.
Building Official Findings:
• The requested reduction is less than or equal to the amount allowed to be modified
and retains the minimum spacing required.
• The Modification granted represents the minimum dimension needed to
accommodate the proposed development and setbacks are the sole modification
requested.
• While the applicant indicated a willingness to exchange the north and south
setback distances during the administrative hearing, Staff did not believe that
would result in a better design. Therefore, no condition was placed on the
approval.
4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of
the regulation modified.
Building Official Findings:
• Light, air, and opportunities for privacy, scale, and the physical relationship
between buildings will be maintained by the observation of other dimensional
standards of the zoning code and the inherent limit on the extent of reduction
allowed by Minor Modification of side setbacks.
• Fire protection separation distances and access are addressed by the Building
Code which applies to all new construction and will be maintained.
• Allowing for a range of different setback distances to be administratively approved
provides flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings and
streets in the vicinity while still meeting the minimum requirements.
5. The requested minor modification complies with other applicable statutes,
ordinances, laws and regulations.
Building Official Findings:
Page 4
• The Minor Modification granted does not relieve the property owner from
complying with all other applicable statues, ordinances, or laws.
• All other current dimensional zoning requirements and other code requirements
will be met including required open space.
• Denial of the requested Minor Modification does not ensure a limitation on height
or stories.
• As with most properties in the City of Iowa City, the subject property is not subject
to any design or architectural controls.
REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
The City Code sets forth the authority of the Board in an appeal.
Section 14-7a-2c1 states:
Powers: The board shall have the following powers:
1. Appeals: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any
order, requirement, decision or determination made by the City Manager or designee in
the enforcement of this title or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
Section 14-8-3b, in part, states:
3. At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented
regarding the subject appeal.
4. In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in
conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm,
or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision
or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or
determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the
officer from whom the appeal is taken.
It is City staff’s position that there is no error in the minor modification decision. The criteria were
considered and satisfied. City staff respectfully requests that the Board affirm the minor
modification decision.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Notification Letters
3. Decision Letter
4. Surrounding Property Images & Map
5. Correspondence from Applicant (received prior to the minor modification hearing)
6. Correspondence from Public (received prior to the minor modification hearing)
MINOR MODIFICATION – General Approval Criteria (14-4B-1)
•Site Address: _________________________________________
•Applicant: ____________________________________________
•Provide a separate page with names and addresses of neighbors within 200’ of the subject property
•Check the minor modification(s) requested:
___ 1. Commercial parking requirement reduced by 10% ___ 13. Modification to driveway spacing standards *
___ 2. Commercial parking reduction of up to 50% ___ 14. Building addition/accessory building for accessory
shared parking uses within parks and open spaces
___ 3. Reduction of minimum parking requirement for
housing program or affordable housing units (CB-5
and CB-10) ___15. Building addition/accessory building for general
educational facilities or religious/private group use
___ 4. Height of wall or fence increased up to 25% but
no greater than 8’ in height ___ 16. Modifications of multi-family site development
standards *
___ 5. Height of building increased up to 10% ___ 17. Modifications to industrial/research zone site development
standard or public zone development standards *
___ 6. Wheelchair ramp setback
___ 18. Additional garage entrance/exit to structure parking
___ 7. Reduction of side setback up to 2’ leaving no less than
3’ of side yard
___ 19. Freestanding sign in CB-2 zone
___ 8. Front or rear yard reduction up to 15% of the
required setback ___ 20. Modification/waiver to non-conforming development
provisions
___ 9. One parking space for persons with disabilities
in a required front yard for commercial use ___ 21. Modification to driveway length single family zone
adjacent to an R zone
___ 22. Entranceway/gateway in R zone
___ 10. Freestanding sign height increase by up to 10 feet
___ 23. Modification to reduce open space requirement for single
___ 11. One non-resident employee for home occupation family and two family uses *
___ 12. One non-resident employee for bed & breakfast *indicates alternate/specific approval criteria
1.Indicate any special circumstances which create a need for minor modification, such as size, shape, topography, configuration of
lot, location or surroundings:
2.Explain why a minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located:
3.Explain how the minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the property:
Any minor modification granted shall be subject to the requirements of, and in conformity with, the intent and purposes of the Iowa City’s Zoning Chapter. The applicant bears
the burden of proving that a minor modification is necessary and must exercise the minor modification within 180 days from the date of approval or the minor modification shall
become null and void. Minor modifications do not in any way alter an applicants’ obligation to comply with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
See accompanying letter.
See accompanying letter.
The minor modification permits a reduction of the side yard setback by up to 2 feet so long as there is a remaining setback of 3
feet. The requested modification fits within these standards.
4.Explain how the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified:
See accompanying letter.
5.Explain how the minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations:
The owner has met with staff to review the project. The project is in compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances and
regulations except the side yard setback for which this minor modification is being requested.
X
Prestige Properties Development LLC
319 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa
A-1FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
CANADA S4R 1K3
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.
BASE PLAN #
DRAWING TITLE
DATE
SCALE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY
R.R.D.I.EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPRESTIGE DISCLAIMERMcCALLUM 1561
1.Copyright of these plans remains with Robinson
Residential Design Inc and issuance of them are for a
one time build only. Duplication of these plans in whole
or in part is strictly prohibited, without prior written
permission from Robinson Residential Design Inc.
2.Drawings are not to be scaled.
3.All plans are drawn to suit the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) and the International Residential
Code (IRC). Due to local building codes, zoning
regulations and climatic conditions, plans must be
reviewed by a local building official prior to
construction. All structural components indicated on
these drawings must be reviewed and engineered by a
licensed professional in the local province/state.
4.Robinson Residential Design Inc. assumes no liability
or responsibility for any errors, omissions and any
incidental indirect or consequential damages
whatsoever arising from the use of these drawings or
the information provided therein.
PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE. DEC 03, 2020
A-2FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
CANADA S4R 1K3
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.
BASE PLAN #
DRAWING TITLE
DATE
SCALE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY
R.R.D.I.EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPRESTIGE DISCLAIMERMcCALLUM 1561
1.Copyright of these plans remains with Robinson
Residential Design Inc and issuance of them are for a
one time build only. Duplication of these plans in whole
or in part is strictly prohibited, without prior written
permission from Robinson Residential Design Inc.
2.Drawings are not to be scaled.
3.All plans are drawn to suit the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) and the International Residential
Code (IRC). Due to local building codes, zoning
regulations and climatic conditions, plans must be
reviewed by a local building official prior to
construction. All structural components indicated on
these drawings must be reviewed and engineered by a
licensed professional in the local province/state.
4.Robinson Residential Design Inc. assumes no liability
or responsibility for any errors, omissions and any
incidental indirect or consequential damages
whatsoever arising from the use of these drawings or
the information provided therein.
PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE. DEC 03, 2020
QUEEN
A-3FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
CANADA S4R 1K3
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.
BASE PLAN #
DRAWING TITLE
DATE
SCALE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY
R.R.D.I.BASEMENT PLANPRESTIGE DISCLAIMERMcCALLUM 1561
1.Copyright of these plans remains with Robinson
Residential Design Inc and issuance of them are for a
one time build only. Duplication of these plans in whole
or in part is strictly prohibited, without prior written
permission from Robinson Residential Design Inc.
2.Drawings are not to be scaled.
3.All plans are drawn to suit the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) and the International Residential
Code (IRC). Due to local building codes, zoning
regulations and climatic conditions, plans must be
reviewed by a local building official prior to
construction. All structural components indicated on
these drawings must be reviewed and engineered by a
licensed professional in the local province/state.
4.Robinson Residential Design Inc. assumes no liability
or responsibility for any errors, omissions and any
incidental indirect or consequential damages
whatsoever arising from the use of these drawings or
the information provided therein.
PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE. 16'-0"x7'-0"DEC 03, 2020
A-4FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
CANADA S4R 1K3
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.
BASE PLAN #
DRAWING TITLE
DATE
SCALE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY
R.R.D.I.MAIN FLOOR PLANPRESTIGE DISCLAIMERMcCALLUM 1561
1.Copyright of these plans remains with Robinson
Residential Design Inc and issuance of them are for a
one time build only. Duplication of these plans in whole
or in part is strictly prohibited, without prior written
permission from Robinson Residential Design Inc.
2.Drawings are not to be scaled.
3.All plans are drawn to suit the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) and the International Residential
Code (IRC). Due to local building codes, zoning
regulations and climatic conditions, plans must be
reviewed by a local building official prior to
construction. All structural components indicated on
these drawings must be reviewed and engineered by a
licensed professional in the local province/state.
4.Robinson Residential Design Inc. assumes no liability
or responsibility for any errors, omissions and any
incidental indirect or consequential damages
whatsoever arising from the use of these drawings or
the information provided therein.
PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE. DEC 03, 2020
KING96x80QUEENQUEEN
A-5FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
CANADA S4R 1K3
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.
BASE PLAN #
DRAWING TITLE
DATE
SCALE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN BY
R.R.D.I.SECOND FLOOR PLANPRESTIGE DISCLAIMERMcCALLUM 1561
1.Copyright of these plans remains with Robinson
Residential Design Inc and issuance of them are for a
one time build only. Duplication of these plans in whole
or in part is strictly prohibited, without prior written
permission from Robinson Residential Design Inc.
2.Drawings are not to be scaled.
3.All plans are drawn to suit the National Building Code
of Canada (NBCC) and the International Residential
Code (IRC). Due to local building codes, zoning
regulations and climatic conditions, plans must be
reviewed by a local building official prior to
construction. All structural components indicated on
these drawings must be reviewed and engineered by a
licensed professional in the local province/state.
4.Robinson Residential Design Inc. assumes no liability
or responsibility for any errors, omissions and any
incidental indirect or consequential damages
whatsoever arising from the use of these drawings or
the information provided therein.
PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE. 18x8018x8018x8018x8018x8018x80DEC 03, 2020
A-6BASE PLAN #
CANADA S4R 1K3
FAX: (306) 352-6619
TOLL FREE: (877) 352-6617
REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN
2232 2ND AVENUEwww.robinsonplans.com DRAWING NO.DRAWING TITLE
A DIVISION OF ROBINSON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN INC.
DATE
DISCLAIMERDRAWN BY CHECKED BYSCALE
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT: 319N VAN BUREN AVE.
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services, 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240
December 11, 2020
Prestige Properties IV LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Property Owner:
An application for a Minor Modification to the Zoning Ordinance has been received by our office for a reduction of
the required side yard setback in order to build a new single-family dwelling at 319 N. Van Buren Street in Iowa City.
Specifically, the applicant, Prestige Properties, has requested a reduction of the required side yard setback from 7 feet
to 5 feet on the north side and 6 feet on the south side.
Because you are the owner of property within 200 feet of the exterior boundary of the property in question, this letter
is being written to inform you that an administrative hearing regarding this request has been scheduled for Wednesday,
January 6th, 2021 at 11:00AM via electronic meeting. To participate in the hearing, please see the below instructions:
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 applicants, staff and the public presented by COVID-19
You can participate in the administrative hearing through Zoom. Join the Zoom meeting here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82668209706?pwd=WmNROE42RG1Rc2w0RURzZ0JjdHQ1Zz09
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 Meeting ID: 826 6820 9706 Passcode: 691963
Providing comment in person is not an option. Letters and comments may be submitted via email to marnie-
teagle@iowa-city.org or by mail to 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240.
A minor modification may be approved and/or modified, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, if all of the
following are found:
(1) Special circumstances apply to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.
(2) The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the property is located.
(3) The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not
otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
(4) The minor modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter.
(5) The minor modification does not, in any way, alter the applicant's obligation to comply with other applicable
statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
Please direct any questions you may have to the Department of Neighborhood & Development Services at 319-356-
5123.
Sincerely,
Danielle Sitzman
Building Official, Neighborhood and Development Services
Enclosure
Owner
Prestige Properties IV LLC
Prestige Properties IV LLC
Julia Ella Leupod Revocable Trust and Jerod Leupod
Don and Dorothy Fowles
Prestige Properties IV LLC
Prestige Properties IV LLC
Bloomington Street Properties LLC
Bloomington Street Properties LLC
Prestige Properties Development LLC
Jason Vardaman
Andrew and Lindsey Litton
Andrew and Lindsey Litton f/k/a Lindsey Scheppmann
David and Lysa Moore
Michael and Kelley Mclaughlin
Shawn Colbert
Erp LLC
Msl Jcl, LC
Darlene Clausen and Alfred Marron
Bloomington Building Properties LLC
Steve and Christina Nash
M322 LLC
Rem Properties LC
Rem Properties LC
Marlin Ingalls
Mailing Address
Prestige Properties IV LLC, 329 E. Court Street, Suite 2, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Prestige Properties IV LLC, 329 E. Court Street, Suite 2, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Julia Ella Leupod Revocable Trust, 13515 253rd Avenue, Spirit Lake, Iowa 51360
Don and Dorothy Fowles, 4655 Running Deer Woods NE, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Prestige Properties IV LLC, 329 E. Court Street, Suite 2, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Prestige Properties IV LLC, 329 E. Court Street, Suite 2, Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Bloomington Street Properties LLC, 5 Kimball Road, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Bloomington Street Properties LLC, 5 Kimball Road, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Prestige Properties Development LLC,329 E.Court Street,Suite 2,Iowa City,
Iowa 52240
Jason Vardaman, 315 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Andrew and Lindsey Litton, 331 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Andrew and Lindsey Litton f/k/a Lindsey Scheppmann,331 N.Van Buren Street,
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
David and Lysa Moore, 425 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Michael and Kelley Mclaughlin, 614 Pine Ridge Road, Coralville, Iowa 52241
Shawn Colbert, 415 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Erp LLC, 1530 lwv Road SW, Oxford, Iowa 52322
Msl Jcl, LC, 228 Woolf Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Darlene Clausen and Alfred Marron,508 E.Bloomington Street,Iowa City,Iowa
52245
Bloomington Building Properties LLC,510 E.Bloomington Street,Iowa City,
Iowa 52245
Steve and Christina Nash, 1113 Prairie Grass Lane, Iowa City, Iowa 52246
M322 LLC, PO Box 3049, Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Rem Properties LC,Attn:Richard Mason,953 Weeber Street,Iowa City,Iowa
52246
Rem Properties LC,Attn:Richard Mason,953 Weeber Street,Iowa City,Iowa
52246
Marlin Ingalls, 515 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Property Address
330 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
324 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
318 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
310 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
404 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
412 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
424 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
430 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
432 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
315 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
323 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
331 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
425 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
421 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
415 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
411 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
504 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
508 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
510 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
314 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
322 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
332 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
509 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
515 E. Davenport Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52245
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240
December 14, 2020
Prestige Properties IV LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Sir or Madame,
Your application for a minor modification to the Zoning Ordinance has been received by our office. This letter is
being written to inform you that an administrative hearing for a reduction to the required side setback at 319 N. Van
Buren Street in Iowa City, IA is scheduled for Wednesday, January 6th, 2021 at 11:00AM via electronic meeting. To
participate in the hearing, please see the below instructions:
You can participate in the administrative hearing through Zoom. Join the Zoom meeting here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82668209706?pwd=WmNROE42RG1Rc2w0RURzZ0JjdHQ1Zz09
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 Meeting ID: 826 6820 9706 Passcode: 691963
A minor modification may be approved and/or modified, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, if all of the
following are found:
(1) Special circumstances apply to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.
(2) The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zoning district in which the property is located.
(3) The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not
otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property.
(4) The minor modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter.
(5) The minor modification does not, in any way, alter the applicant's obligation to comply with other applicable
statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
Please direct any questions you may have to the Department of Housing and Inspection Services at 319-356-5120.
Sincerely,
Marnie Teagle
Marnie Teagle
Code Enforcement Specialist
Neighborhood and Development Services
CC: David Ginger / Belin McCormick Attorneys at Law
Prepared by and return to Marnie Teagle, Code Enforcement Specialist, City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA, 319.356.5120
MINOR MODIFICATION DECISION
January 14, 2021
Michael Oliveira
Prestige Properties, LLC
329 E. Court St -Unit 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Mr. Oliveira:
The Minor Modification requested to reduce the required seven (7) foot side setback along the north property line
by two (2) feet and along the south property line by one (1) foot to accommodate construction of a three-story
single-family dwelling at 319 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City with a resulting minimum north property line side
setback of five (5) feet and south property line side setback of six (6) feet, is hereby approved. Per Municipal
Code Section 14-4B-1A-7, side setbacks may be reduced up to two feet (2'), but in no case shall a required setback
from a side lot line be reduced to less than three feet (3'), unless the subject side lot line abuts a public right-of-way
or permanent open space.
The subject property is an existing small vacant lot containing 2,800 square foot with dimensions of 35’ x 80’. It
was created as part of the original town plat of Iowa City in 1906, is currently zoned RNS-12 Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential zone, and is outside of any historic preservation or conservation district. The RNS-12
zoning district is intended to stabilize certain existing residential neighborhoods by preserving the predominantly
single-family residential character of these neighborhoods and preventing the conversion or redevelopment of
single-family uses to multi-family uses.
The applicant intends to apply for construction of a detached single-family dwelling unit. The proposed single-
family dwelling includes three stories in order to accommodate an attached garage on the ground floor and desired
living spaces within, while meeting all other required current code standards.
The subject property does not meet current zoning standards for lot frontage, width, or minimum lot area, but a
single-family use is considered conforming and may still be established on such a lot of record per Municipal Code
(14-4E-7). The minimum required side setback for a detached single-family dwelling in the RNS-12 zone is 5 feet
for the first two stories plus 2 feet for each additional story with a maximum building height of 35 feet. Therefore,
the size and location of the property contribute to create special circumstances for new construction.
The Minor Modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other
properties in the neighborhood. Separation for fire protection and access for firefighting is maintained with side
setbacks of 5 feet on the north property line and 6 feet on the south alley facing property line. Alley access and use
is similar to other existing dwellings along alleys in this neighborhood.
The Minor Modification does not exceed the standards authorized by the Minor Modification standards or allow a
use or activity not otherwise authorized by the Zoning Code. The modification granted represents the minimum
dimension needed to accommodate the proposed development.
Prepared by and return to Marnie Teagle, Code Enforcement Specialist, City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA, 319.356.5120
The Minor Modification conforms with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that light, air,
and separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting are maintained, 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, and provide flexibility to
site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
The Minor Modification does not relieve the property owner from complying with all other applicable statutes,
ordinances, laws or regulations. All other current dimensional zoning requirements or other code requirements
will be met.
This document must be recorded at the Office of the Johnson County Recorder. This modification must be
exercised with 180 days from the date of approval, or the Minor Modification shall become null and void.
Sincerely,
Danielle Sitzman
Development Services Coordinator and Building Official
City of Iowa City
CC: David Ginger, Attorney, Belin McCormick, P.C.
310 N Gilbert St West Side
315 N. Van Buren St East Side
318 N Gilbert St West Side
322 N. Van Buren St Across East Side
323 N. Van Buren St East Side
324 N. Gilbert St West Side
402 E. Davenport St Across North Side
331 N. Van Buren St East Side
330 N. Gilbert St West Side
404 E. Davenport St Across North Side
404 E. Bloomington St South Side
415 E. Davenport St North Side
414 E. Davenport St Across North Side
420 E. Davenport St Across North Side
424 E. Bloomington St South Side
421 E. Davenport St North Side
424 E. Davenport St Across North Side
425 E. Davenport St North Side
332 N. Van Buren St Across East Side
430 E. Bloomington St South Side
432 E. Bloomington St South Side
504 E. Bloomington St Across East Side
502 E. Davenport St Across NE Corner
430 E. Davenport St Across North Side
314 N. Van Buren St Across East Side
411 E. Davenport St North Side
412 E. Bloomington St South Side
David Ginger
Direct Dial: (515) 283-4668
Direct Fax: (515) 558-0668
E-mail: dlginger@belinmccormick.com
December 7, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION ON SELF SERVICE PORTAL
City of Iowa City
Attention: Marnie Teagle
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: 319 N. Van Buren Street – Minor Modification to Side Yard Setback
Dear Marnie:
My firm represents Prestige Properties Development LLC (the “Owner”). The Owner owns the vacant lot with a
local address of 319 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa (the “Lot”) and has been contacted by Dr. Brian
Richards and Dr. Bronwen Richards (the “Purchasers”) regarding the construction and sale of a single-family home
upon the Lot. The unique circumstance of the Lot, however, make the strict application of the side yard setback
requirements impractical with respect to the construction of a single-family home desirable to a modern day
homeowner, and I write to respectfully request a minor modification on behalf of the Owner pursuant to Iowa City
Code 14-4B-1(A)(7).
For some background, the Lot is located within the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential Zone with a side yard
setback requirement of 5 feet for the first two stories and an additional 2 feet for each additional story. The
dimensions of the Lot are approximately 80 feet in width by 35 feet in length. In other words, the Lot is very
narrow—which necessitated the recently demolished single-family home upon the Lot to have side yard setbacks of
approximately 3.7 feet on the north and 5.2 feet on the south (see enclosed plat of survey retracement)—and is
relatively small. On a lot of this size, it is nearly impossible to accommodate the needs of a modern day
homeowner—with a need for more square footage and attached garages—while remaining in strict compliance with
all setback, maximum building coverage, open space requirements and other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws
and regulations that apply to modern day construction. After multiple design review meetings with city staff, the
Owner and Purchasers have come to an agreement on a single-family home design that meets the needs of a modern
day homeowner and is in compliance with all statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations with one exception. As
such, the Owner requests a minor modification to reduce the required side yard setback for the north boundary by 2
feet (for a north side yard setback of 5 feet) and for the south boundary by 1 foot (for a south side yard setback of 6
feet) to permit the construction of a single-family home that meets the needs of modern day homeowner and is as
close as possible to compliance with all statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations.
Upon reviewing the history and situation of the Lot and properties in the vicinity of the Lot, the minor modification
requested would not be detrimental to health, safety or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements;
nor is it inconsistent with the intent and purpose of setbacks. The north side yard setback of the recently demolished
single-family home was 1.3 feet less than the side yard setback being requested by the Owner, and the south side
yard setback of the recently demolished single-family home was .8 feet less than the side yard setback being
requested by the Owner. I understand this does not create a right in Owner for a reduced side yard setback, but it is
indicative that the requested minor modification is not detrimental to health, safety or welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements. Further, the structure to the north of the Lot (i.e. 323 N. Van Buren Street) is more than
9 feet from the lot line, and there is an alley to the south of the Lot—meaning there will still be adequate distances
between the next closet structures to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public and remain consistent
with the intent and purpose of side yard setbacks.
I have enclosed the site plan showing the dimensions of the single family house desired to be constructed upon the
Lot for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information to start the
minor modification application process.
Best,
David Ginger
For the Firm
Enclosures
(3678274.1).doc
file:///civic/...01%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N%20Van%20Buren%20Clausen.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:50 PM]
From: Darlene Clausen <clausendarlene7@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 12:44 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N Van Buren
I was unable to give my comments in the Zoom meeting because I was not using a set up familiar to me.
I couldn't figure out how to take myself off mute until the time for comments ended.
I write in opposition to the request for minor modification of the side yard setback for the proposed
building at 319 N Van Buren.
Of the five conditions listed for having a setback modification, I do not believe the building meets
condition 1, 2, or 4.
1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings.
There are many small lots in the neighborhood built to accommodate 2 or 3 bedroom houses, many
with parking or a garage. The house at the opposite end of the alley at 318 N Gilbert is a 3 bedroom
house with a garage built on a lot similar in size. It is a one story building.
2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious
to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located.
Setbacks are there to allow space between buildings to protect surrounding buildings from potential
disaster like fire. Buildings built close together can enable a spread of fire. There are buildings on the
Northside that are close together but most were built before the setbacks were regulated. To request a
reduction in setback based on what was formerly done contradicts the reason for establishing setbacks.
4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
The Northside has been working to maintain an environment conducive to diverse family types. It is
difficult to imagine how a single family house with thirteen stairs leading to the living area would be
manageable to a young family (imagine carrying a stroller up and down those stairs) or to anyone with
mobility issues. This proposal does not consider changes to what ownership may look like in years to
come.
Development of the lot would be desirable if it tried to promote the character of the neighborhood. A
three story building with a flat roof certainly does not seem to recognize the character at all.
Thank you,
Darlene Clausen
508 E Bloomington St
file:///civic/...21-0001%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N%20Van%20Buren%20St.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:50 PM]
From: Jake Vardaman <jakev@mac.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:24 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N Van Buren St
Good afternoon, If I have the wrong address please advise. I know that Jan 11th was given in the zoom
meeting as the deadline for submitting concerns.
Minor modification concern:
• We would object to the building be moved any closer to the South side on alley (setback). Our
property (315 N Van Buren) has been injured several times from vehicles backing out of the lot at 319.
Both a wooden guard rail and the chain link fence still show major damage from these events. I believe
our house itself would have also been breached if not for the guard rail. Moving access setback South
towards the alley would severely constrict vehicle access even more than before. This would also be
dangerous for my small children who play in the back North side of our property.
I’m all for a beautiful property being built at 319, my only concern is safety for property and family.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this concern,
Jake Vardaman
file:///civic/...0001%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N%20Van%20Buren%20zoom.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: Jake Vardaman <jakev@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 10:04 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Cc: Becky Vardaman
Subject: 319 N Van Buren zoom
Hi Marnie,
Can you please forward me a zoom link. I’m a property owner within 200 feet.
My back yard fence has been destroyed by vehicles backing out by the previous home owners. I am also
somewhat concerned about fitting in with the character and aesthetic of the neighborhood as per
building height/width.
Would like to attend the zoom.
Thanks,
Jason (Jake) Vardaman
315 N Van Buren St
Iowa City, Ia 52245
This email is from an external source.
file:///civic/...1/APL21-0001%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N%20Van%20Buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: andylitton@mchsi.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:22 AM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N Van Buren
Good morning Marnie,
Thanks for the link to the Zoom meeting.
I would like to take a monument and address the project at 319 N Van Buren. I am the property owner
directly North at 323 N Van Buren. I would like to oppose the minor modification in the set backs. I
believe it would adversely affect my property by encroaching upon it. The developer knows what the set
backs are and should be required to maintain them in order minimize the impact on my property.
Thank you.
Andy Litton 319-621-7072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marnie Teagle" <Marnie-Teagle@iowa-city.org>
To: "andylitton" <andylitton@mchsi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:06:49 AM
Subject: Zoom Meeting Info
Please see the below info:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82668209706?pwd=WmNROE42RG1Rc2w0RURzZ0JjdHQ1Zz09
Meeting ID: 826 6820 9706
Passcode: 691963
One tap mobile
+13017158592,,82668209706#,,,,,,0#,,691963# US (Washington D.C)
+13126266799,,82668209706#,,,,,,0#,,691963# US (Chicago)
Dial by your location
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 826 6820 9706
Passcode: 691963
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcSjbtuFxL
Marnie Teagle
Code Enforcement Specialist
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
file:///civic/...1/APL21-0001%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N%20Van%20Buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5123
marnie-teagle@iowa-city.org<mailto:marnie-teagle@iowa-city.org>
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely
for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
file:///civic/...1%20319%20N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N.%20Van%20Buran%20objection.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: Fowles, Dorothy L [ART] <dfowles@iastate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 10:31 AM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N. Van Buran objection
Importance: High
Administrative hearing participants:
We would like to file a formal objection to the reduction of setbacks requested by Prestige Properties
for 319 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City.
1. The northside reduction creates the potential for water runoff problems for the adjacent
property. We formerly owned a residence on S. Van Buren Street. When a new structure was
built adjacent to ours its runoff caused water problems in our structure’s basement that was
going to require considerable expense to correct. I am concerned that this may be real potential
problem for the owners of the property north of 319. Setbacks are established for a reason and
should not be modified to accommodate an oversized new structure.
2. The south side reduction request is on the alley and may not cause much of a concern until
vehicles start to park adjacent to the house when there are 4 or 5 occupants who each have a
car. They are likely to park partly in the alley so that they have room to open the vehicle doors.
3. Of real concern is the fact that the proposed residence is really too large for the lot. It is stated
as a single-family dwelling. Is this really the intent of the developer? Why are there 4 full bath
rooms (including one on the main floor), 4 bedrooms, and off-street parking for 3 cars, but no
designated storage space or yard space in a single-family dwelling? What is the hypothetical
“family” that would occupy a residence with this configuration--or is the intent to be student
housing, just disguised as a family dwelling? If the developer is serious about this being built for
single family, I would suggest removing the bedroom and bath on the foundation level and add
storage there. Removal of the carport would add green space in the back yard. Also there would
be an extra 120 square feet of outdoor space available by not granting the set-back exception.
Respectfully submitted,
Dorothy and Don Fowles
Property owners of 310 North Gilbert St.
Iowa City, Iowa
file:///civic/...%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20Minor%20Modification.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: S Colbert <scolbert1158@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N. Van Buren Minor Modification
To Marnie Teagle and whom it may concern,
To start, I would like to thank you for adding my previous letter to the public record.
I understand that some may have misinterpreted what I had conveyed in that letter. This has led to some
misleading assertions made by the respectable Mr. David Ginger. This has prompted me to clarify my
opposition for the record.
The views expressed in this letter and my previous letter are my own thoughts and opinions and I am not in any
way communicating on the behalf of others.
I believe I made abundantly clear that my foremost concern is that zoning codes are created to be adhered to,
not to be modified unnecessarily.
In fact, Mr. Ginger's contention that the balance of rental to owner occupied homes, and architectural
aesthetics should "not be given any weight" is what I would see as an exercise in the exact purpose of the
zoning codes.
14-4B-1 states that "the minor modification requested shall be in conformity with the intent and purpose 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 a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity."
In regards to the other purposes of minimum setbacks: natural lighting, privacy, reasonable distance between
buildings, etc. My neighbors have provided many examples of how this development and minor modification do
not harmonize with the intent of the zoning code.
Chapter 1 of the Iowa City Zoning code clearly defines the purpose of the code in its entirety:
"The provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a manner
that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa
City."
When I purchased my home in this neighborhood over two years ago, I was familiar with Iowa City's
comprehensive plan for housing and was quite pleased to know part of the plan is to:
"Support policies that preserve and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods,"
"Strive to create a healthy balance of rental and owner-occupied housing in all neighborhoods."
"Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts
of the city."
file:///civic/...%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20Minor%20Modification.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
The zoning code is a tool to execute this plan. The setback modification that could be allowed by Chapter 4 is a
permissive portion of the code, not mandatory. So many of my neighbors have voiced logical opposition to this
proposal. With everything I've stated in mind, I would ask you to please reject this minor modification request.
While I am in opposition to allowing a modification to the setback requirements, I welcome the development of
this vacant lot. An owner occupied dwelling is much more desirable than the tire tracks that reside there now.
The Iowa City comprehensive plan encourages development of lots such as this one. But the development
really should fall within the parameters of the zoning codes and the comprehensive plan put in place by our
elected local government.
Thank you.
Shawn Colbert
415 E. Davenport St.
Iowa City, IA
319-541-7700
file:///civic/...0N%20Van%20Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20St.%20Iowa%20City.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: Marlin Ingalls <ingallsmarlin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: 319 N. Van Buren St. Iowa City
I would like to object to the proposed new contruction located at 319 N. Van Buren St., in Iowa City. I
feel that the proposed property is not sensitive to the arcitecture of the neighborhood in both size and
design, will block light and sight distance due to excessive height, and does not represent a positive
representation or example for future construction in the
neighborhood. Thank
you. Marlin R. Ingalls. 515 E. Davenport St., Iowa City,
IA, 52245
January 4, 2021
Marnie Teagle
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: 319 North Van Buren Street
Dear Ms. Teagle,
Friends of Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization that advocates for the preservation
of historic buildings and neighborhoods, and therefore the quality of life in our community. We
support the City’s effort to stabilize and preserve older neighborhoods through new investment.
One of our members asked us to review the proposal for 319 N. Van Buren Street.
The proposal for a three-story flat-roof building is quite out of scale and character with the
historic Northside Neighborhood. The building would be much taller than the one- and two-
story houses existing in the area. It would contain none of the features, such as porches and
varied rooflines, of the neighborhood houses. Its window pattern is stark. The facade presents a
blank wall at the street level compared to welcoming front stoops and porches common in the
Northside. Rather than being an integrated design component, the front entrance is high above
the street via a stairway that hangs from the building. And imagine traversing that stairway in
icy weather conditions (there are practical as well as aesthetic reasons for good design).
We believe it is possible to build a modern house that is compatible with a historic
neighborhood. There is not a need to do a reproduction of a Victorian or Craftsman Style house,
but a modern design that includes elements, such as an entry stoop or porch, double -hung
windows and pitched roofs would help a new building be compatible with its neighbors. Scale
and height are also important. We believe that the proposed design will not contribute to the
City’s stated goal to stabilize and preserve the Northside Neighborhood. Rather, it will detract
from the neighborhood and the enjoyment of adjacent properties. Modification of zoning
requirements should only be
granted for buildings that are compatible in design with their surroundings.
We urge you to deny the proposal as presented and work with the neighborhood and applicant
to achieve a compatible infill house for 319 N. Van Buren Street.
Sincerely,
Maeve Clark,
President, Friends of Historic Preservation
January 10, 2021
Marnie Teagle, Building Specialist
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Teagle,
Please accept the following comments regarding the minor modification request to the current
side yard setbacks at 319 N. Van Buren Street. After reading David Ginger’s letter of January 8,
2021, I feel it is important to reiterate and elaborate on the points made by many of the
neighbors in opposition to the minor modification.
Regardless of who lives at 319 N. Van Buren Street, whether it be owner-occupants or the
college-age children of the owners, or unknown future residents, the proposed house is too
large for the small lot on which it is proposed. The house would be much taller than any in the
neighborhood and will have negative effects on the neighborhood, especially the adjacent
properties that will be denied natural light and air flow that zoning setbacks are intended to
provide.
The applicant’s desire for a taller and larger house should not override the required zoning
setbacks for taller buildings. Approval of the special treatment requested by Prestige Properties
and the potential buyers would diminish the neighbors’ enjoyment of their properties, especially
323 N. Van Buren Street.
The requested Minor Modification clearly does not meet the tests required for approval by the
Zoning Code. The code states “Minor modification reviews provide flexibility for unusual
situations applicable to the property, for which strict application of the regulations is impractical.”
In this case strict application of the setback requirements would not be impractical. A one- or
two-story house on this lot would comply with required setbacks and would be in keeping with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Although a smaller house may not be as
profitable for the developer, it certainly would be possible on this small lot.
Regardless of who will occupy the building, I repeat what many of the Northside property
owners and residents have stated as legal reasons why the proposed modification should be
denied:
The Zoning Code states that there are five conditions that must be met for approval of a Minor
Modification. This application does not comply with requirements 1, 2 and 4.
1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location,
surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it impractical to
comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject
regulation. There are no special circumstances here that warrant a modification of the required
setbacks. There are several small non-conforming lots located throughout the Northside
Neighborhood. Although this lot is smaller than the 5,000 square feet required for a single-family
dwelling in the RNS-12 zone, that does not justify the proposal to put a larger house on it.
Rather, the small size of the lot would argue for compliance with the zoning code and a smaller
house more appropriate for the lot and the neighborhood. The neighborhood, which the City’s
Comprehensive Plan has made a commitment to preserve, is characterized by one-, one-and-a-
half-, and two-story houses with pitched roofs that appear much smaller than the proposed
three-story building. And as required by the Minor Modification criteria, there is nothing about
the shape, topography, location, surroundings, characteristics, or preexisting site development
which make it impractical to build a house that fits within the prescribed setbacks.
2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property
is located. The proposed three-story building will block natural light and air for the adjacent
properties and present an unattractive view to residents of the neighborhood. One of the intents
of the setback requirement is to preserve open space and prevent properties from denying their
neighboring properties natural light and air flow. Consideration should be given not to just the
current owners of the adjacent properties, but future residents to help assure that the
neighborhood is a livable space over time. This is a goal of the Northside Neighborhood
Association as well as the City as stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the
regulation modified.
The following includes quotes from the Zoning Code (in italics) with my comments in boldface:
Purpose: The minimum setback requirements are intended to:
a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for firefighting; The
proposed modification will deny neighboring properties—especially 323 N. Van Buren
Street—access to natural light and airflow and will result in a less than ideal situation for
fire protection.
b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings; The proposed modification will
allow a three-story building with windows looking down onto adjacent properties.
c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the city's
neighborhoods; The proposed three-story building will be out of scale with houses in the
surrounding neighborhood and will have less open space than required by zoning
setbacks.
d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between
residences; The proposed three-story building will not have a reasonable relationship
with the adjacent one- to two-story residences.
e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity.
The proposed three-story building with its flat roof, blank street level wall, and second-
floor front door would be quite incompatible with buildings in the vicinity.
The intent of greater setbacks for taller buildings is to help them fit into the neighborhood by
providing greater open space around the larger buildings and neighboring properties. Setbacks
also help assure adequate natural light and airflow. Prestige Properties’ contention that the
small size of the lot is reason to allow a greater building volume, and thus less open space, is
counter to the intent and purpose of the setback requirements. The smaller lots size does not
prevent Prestige from building a smaller and perhaps more affordable dwelling at 319 N. Van
Buren Street.
The proposed Minor Modification should be denied for not meeting the intent of the zoning code
and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve and improve older neighborhoods.
Sarah Clark
NNA Recorder
sclark52245@gmail.com
file:///civic/...orr%20Public/Comments%20regarding%20request%20for%20zoning%20privileges%20for%20319%20N.%20Van%20Buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: James Dreier <mudrums@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 10:28 AM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Comments regarding request for zoning privileges for 319 N. Van Buren
January 4, 2021
City of Iowa City
Attn: Marnie Teagle
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Comments on 319 N. Van Buren St. Zoning Modification Reguest
Dear Ms Teagle,
As longtime home owners at 424 N. Van Buren (over 30 years), we wish to submit
comments on Prestige Properties request for Iowa City to grant special zoning
privileges in the form of a “Minor Modification” at 319 N. Van Buren Street.
After reviewing the submitted archetecual plans along with the request letter submitted
by the lawyers representing Prestige Properties, we are adamantly opposed to this
"Minor Modification" for the following reasons.
1. The structure as proposed would diminish the archetecual integrity of our Northside
neighborhood and the guidelines put forth by the Northside Neighborhood
Association.
2. This neighborhood struggles with the balance of family and student housing, and this
would be yet another multi-occupent rental house in our neighborhood. These
properties often cause nuisance and disorderly house issues.
3. The planned design, which is out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, will
likely obstruct the view of several neighboring houses.
4. Prestige Properties clearly understood the size and restrictions when they purchased
this small lot and it is unreasonable now to ask the neighborhood to accept a 4 bedroom
rental house, too large for the lot.
5. During our many years living on Van Buren Street, Prestige Properties has
purchased more and more real estate around us. We have had multiple issues with
renters in these properties, resulting in numerous calls to both the police and the owner
of Prestige Properties.
We understand that investment property development is an important part of our local
economy and tax base. We have learned to live with all the advantages and
disadvantages of our mixed neighborhood. However, we expect those who purchase
land to build in our neighborhood would accommodate the important zoning ordinances,
that preserve the integrity and character of our unique neighborhood.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the future of our neighborhood
and recommend this zoning request be denied.
file:///civic/...orr%20Public/Comments%20regarding%20request%20for%20zoning%20privileges%20for%20319%20N.%20Van%20Buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
James and LeAnne Dreier
424 N. Van Buren St.
Iowa City, IA. 52245
(319) 621-6002
file:///civic/...ublic/Comments%20related%20to%20319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20Street%20administrative%20hearing%20on%201621.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: Sarah Clark <sclark52245@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Comments related to 319 N. Van Buren Street administrative hearing on 1/6/21
Ms. Teagle,
This is in response to the request by Prestige Properties for a "minor modification" of the zoning
ordinance as it pertains to 319 N. Van Buren Street. I write in opposition to the applicant's request for a
reduction in the size of the side yard setbacks in order to maximize the size of the building built on the
lot because I do not believe that the "minor modification" sought meets all five conditions which must
be met per our zoning code. Specifically, I believe it fails to meet conditions #1, #2, and #4. The
applicant, who is interested in doing infill development, must surely have been aware of what the
zoning code allowed when 319 N. Van Buren was purchased some years ago.
1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings,
or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it impractical to comply with the subject
regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation.
It is not clear what "special circumstances" exist that justify a modification or waiver of the setback
regulation. Yes, it is a small lot, but there are other small lots located within the Northside neighborhood
which contain houses. Indeed, up until a few years ago, a small, one-story house existed on this lot
before being demolished by the applicant. This lot is surrounded by one, one-and-a-half, and two-story
structures, which are characteristic of the neighborhood. There is no compelling reason that makes it
impractical for the applicant to build a smaller (and likely less expensive) house which fits within the
prescribed setbacks.
2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious
to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located.
The proposed three-story house with a flat roof is out of character with the one to two-story
houses/buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. If a smaller setback is allowed, the taller side walls of
a three-story structure will have a greater impact on the houses immediately adjacent to 319 N. Van
Buren. While there are modern apartment buildings scattered throughout the neighborhood, including
across the street from 319 N. Van Buren, those buildings adhere to a two-story height, and don't appear
as physically imposing as would a three-story house which completely fills a small lot.
4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
Requiring a greater setback for taller buildings is to help those buildings fit into the neighborhood by
providing greater open space around the building and the surrounding properties in addition to assuring
adequate natural light and airflow. Reducing the setback requirements for a taller building is directly
counter to the intent and purpose of those requirements.
Finally, I believe approving this "minor modification" request runs counter to the Comprehensive
Plan's goal which is to preserve and improve older neighborhoods.
I have no doubt that the neighborhood would welcome development of this site as long as it is done in a
manner consistent to the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. It would certainly be a bonus if that
development was in the character and spirit of the adjacent Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation
District.
Sarah Clark
Northside Neighborhood Association Recorder
file:///civic/...OD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20re%20319%20n%20van%20buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: David Moore <david_lysa@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 4:36 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: from dave and lysa moore, re 319 n van buren
Dave and Lysa Moore
425 E. Davenport St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
RE: 319 N. Van Buren St.
Dear Ms Teagle,
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide comment on this matter.
i recently read the many letters that are posted on the city webcite. Letters from the neighbors, and also
the letter written by the lawyer for Prestige Properties.
All of the letters from persons who live in owner-occupied dwellings within 200 ft.have objections to the
project, and for a wide variety of reasons.. In fact, every single person who lives within 200 ft., wrote a
letter.
Additionally, there are letters in opposition from The Friends of Historic Preservation, from a
representative of the North Side Neighborhood Association, and from a member of the Hstoric
Preservation Commission.
There is also a letter in opposition from the landlord who owns the 2 properties directly to the north,
one of which is adjacent to the proposed building.
There is a letter from the property owner at 310 Gilbert St. The owner of Larew Law Office, 504 E.
Bloomington, spoke against, at the zoom meeting. Their are several other letters from other
concerned neighbors that live in the north side.
There were many reasons for opposition, and they were wide and varied -
encroachment on an adjacent property, obstruction of light because of the volume and height of the
building, water runoff, parking problems, and more.
I`d like to address a few of the comments from the letter written for Prestige Properties, by their lawyer,
David Ginger.
-Mr. Ginger dismisses the concerns about water runoff, by stating that the prior building was closer to
the adjacent properties. But the prior building was tiny. This building is huge.
i am no expert, but i would imagine it would make a difference,
-He then dismisses the concerns about light blockage, stating that there are trees in excess of the height
of proposed building which already restrict light. first, there have never been any tall trees on that
property in the 35 years i have lived here. second, any surrounding trees in the neighborhood are of no
issue in winter, when they do not have leaves, when light from the south is needed.
-He contends that there are buildings in the area of similar height. I know these buildings.
One building - at the top of it`s chimney, at the top of it`s tallest peak, could be 35 ft.. The proposed
building is 35 ft, tall, and is flat.. It would loom high above the buildings to the north, where the highest
peaks are about 24 ft.
file:///civic/...OD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20re%20319%20n%20van%20buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
-Mr Ginger then mentions the previous garage on the site, which had a smaller set back than the
proposed 2 car garage. But, in the 35 years that we lived here, that garage never had a vehicle in it. . It
was just used for storage. The cars that occupants used, were parked outside and backed into the
alley. I have heard there was damage to 315 N. Van Buren from those vehicles.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide some additional comments,
Dave and Lysa Moore
This email is from an external source.
file:///civic/...ments/Corr%20Public/Fw%20letter%20from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20about%20319%20van%20buren%20v2.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: David Moore <david_lysa@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 11:26 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Fw: letter from dave and lysa moore, about 319 van buren
Dave and Lysa Moore
425 E. Davenport St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
RE: 319 N. Van Buren St.
Dear Ms. Teagle,
We have lived at 425 E. Davenport St. for over 35 years. Thank you for the notification letter we
received, as property owners within 200 ft of the proposed development.
We are opposed to the application for a Minor Modification.
We also hope that you could work with the neighborhood and the developer to find a design which is
more in character with the surrounding properties on the north side.
The zoning code states that there are 5 conditions that must be met for approval of a minor
modification. We feel that this application does not comply with #1,#2, and #4.
#1 - "Special circumstances apply to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings"
There are no special circumstances here that warrant a modification of the required
setbacks. Although this lot is smaller than the 5,000 sq ft. required for a single family dwelling in the
RNS-12 zone, that does not justify the proposal to put a larger house on it.
Rather, the small size of the lot would argue for compliance with the zoning code and a smaller house
more appropriate for the lot and the neighborhood. The neighborhood, which the City`s
Comprehensive Plan has made a commitment to preserve, is characterized by one, one-and-a-half, and
two story houses with pitched roofs that appear much smaller than the proposed 3 story box shaped
dwelling. And as required by the Minor Modification criteria, there is nothing which makes it impractical
to build a house which fits within the prescribed setbacks.
#2- "The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zoning district which the property is
located."
The proposed three-story house will be out of character with the other houses in the
neighborhood. There is one modern apartment building across the street from this lot that contrasts
with the traditional houses in the neighborhood, but even that building is only two stories in height. The
proposed three story building will block natural light and air for the adjacent properties and present an
unattractive view to residents of the neighborhood.
One of the intents of the setback requirement is to preserve open space and prevent properties from
denying their neighboring properties natural light and air flow. Consideration should be given not to
just the current owners of the adjacent properties, but future residents to help assure that the
file:///civic/...ments/Corr%20Public/Fw%20letter%20from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20about%20319%20van%20buren%20v2.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
neighborhood is a livable space over time.
#4- "the minor modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter.
The intent of greater setbacks for taller buildings is to help them fit into the neighborhood by
providing greater open space around neighboring properties. The developer`s contention that the small
size of the lot is reason to allow a greater building volume, and thus less open space, is counter to the
intent and purpose of the setback requirements. The smaller lot size does not prevent them from
building a smaller and perhaps more affordable dwelling at
319 N. Van Buren.
Thank you again, for the opportunity to weigh in on this matter. We hope this Minor Modification
request is denied, and we hope that the city can work with the neighborhood and the developer, to find
a design that is more in character with the rest of the properties on the north side.
Sincerely,
Dave and Lysa Moore
This email is from an external source.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely
for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email is from an external source.
file:///civic/...20Documents/Corr%20Public/Fw%20letter%20from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20about%20319%20van%20buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: David Moore <david_lysa@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Fw: letter from dave and lysa moore, about 319 van buren
Dave and Lysa Moore
425 E. Davenport St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
RE: 319 N. Van Buren St.
Dear Ms. Teagle,
We have lived at 425 E. Davenport St. for over 35 years. Thank you for the notification letter we
received, as property owners within 200 ft of the proposed development.
We are opposed to the to the application for a Minor Modification.
We also hope that you could work with the neighborhood and the developer to find a design which is
more in character with the surrounding properties on the north side.
The zoning code states that there are 5 conditions that must be met for approval of a minor
modification. We feel that this application does not comply with #1,#2, and #4.
#1 - "Special circumstances apply to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings"
There are no special circumstances here that warrant a modification of the required
setbacks. Although this lot is smaller than the 5,000 sq ft. required for a single family dwelling in the
RNS-12 zone, that does not justify the proposal to put a larger house on it.
Rather, the small size of the lot would argue for compliance with the zoning code and a smaller house
more appropriate for the lot and the neighborhood. The neighborhood, which the City`s
Comprehensive Plan has made a commitment to preserve, is characterized by one, one-and-a-half, and
two story houses with pitched roofs that appear much smaller than the proposed 3 story box shaped
dwelling. And as required by the Minor Modification criteria, there is nothing which makes it impractical
to build a house which fits within the prescribed setbacks.
#2- "The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zoning district which the property is
located."
The proposed three-story house will be out of character with the other houses in the
neighborhood. There is one modern apartment building across the street from this lot that contrasts
with the traditional houses in the neighborhood, but even that building is only two stories in height. The
proposed three story building will block natural light and air for the adjacent properties and present an
unattractive view to residents of the neighborhood.
One of the intents of the setback requirement is to preserve open space and prevent properties from
denying their neighboring properties natural light and air flow. Consideration should be given not to
just the current owners of the adjacent properties, but future residents to help assure that the
neighborhood is a livable space over time.
file:///civic/...20Documents/Corr%20Public/Fw%20letter%20from%20dave%20and%20lysa%20moore%20about%20319%20van%20buren.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
#4- "the minor modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Chapter.
The intent of greater setbacks for taller buildings is to help them fit into the neighborhood by
providing greater open space around neighboring properties. The developer contends that the small
size of the lot is reason to allow a greater building volume, and thus less open space, is counter to the
intent and purpose of the setback requirements. The smaller lot size does not prevent them from
building a smaller and perhaps more affordable dwelling at
319 N. Van Buren.
Thank you again, for the opportunity to weigh in on this matter. We hope this Minor Modification
request is denied, and we hope that the city can work with the neighborhood and the developer, to find
a design that is more in character with the rest of the properties on the north side.
Sincerely,
Dave and Lysa Moore
This email is from an external source.
1
Ms. Marnie Teagle
Code Enforcement Specialist
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Teagle:
We have seen the response of David Ginger (the lawyer) regarding 319 N. Van Buren St. We
have attempted to summarize the issues that seem important to the issue.
Historic Neighborhood. There has been an attempt to preserve historic buildings and the
character of the North Side. The design of the proposed house is quite out of character. The
cubic 3-story design means that it will have substantially great volume than any other house in
the neighborhood. The visual effect will be large. Additionally, the flat roof design will be
totally out of character. This lot is contiguous with the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation
District. Why would the City grant a variance adjacent to that District that is so dramatically out
of character with the District?
Usage. The letter we received from the City indicates that the owners have applied to “build a
new single family dwelling” at this address. Were they to propose a two-story, two- or three-
bedroom house with two baths, that statement might be credible. In fact, they propose to have
four bedrooms and four full baths—transparently being more consistent with renting to at least
four unrelated students. The design is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the proposed
house. It is reasonable to expect the design to be consistent with the proposed usage when a
variance is requested. Why would the City grant a variance based on a subterfuge?
Parking on the Alley. If the property is to be used for student housing, it will be highly tempting
to use the 6-foot setback area along the alley for guest parking. The tendency will be to park
somewhat into the alley in order to allow the car door next to the house to open.
Student versus Owner Occupancy. Concerns have been expressed over time that the ratio of
student to owner occupied housing should be kept to a minimum and not allowed to increase
further in this north side area. It would be inconsistent with those concerns to allow a variance
for a property for a usage that is so clearly consistent with student housing.
Blocking Light. As others have argued, the three-story, flat roof house will block light to the
house north of this lot, which is especially egregious in the colder months when sunlight is so
desirable. The response that “trees do it” is not adequate.
Water Control. The flat roof will collect a lot of water, yet there is no specification of how the
water run-off is to be controlled. It is also important to consider the runoff from the side of the
building. The sides of this proposed building will have a large area for rain to hit and run down
in an uncontrolled manner. This concern is especially important for the north side. That water
will come down the north side of the building and cumulate on a small area produced by the 5-
2
foot setback. It is highly probable that such water will end up in large quantities on the property
adjacent to the north, thereby having a destructive effect on a neighbor. Additionally, the
property has a moderately large footprint for the lot, reducing the ground area to absorb water. If
the owners should pave the area next to the alley (e.g., for parking), that would decrease the
water absorption area further.
Don & Dorothy Fowles (owners of rental property at 310 N. Gilbert St.)
From: Diana Harris <cwcrrr@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2021 11:11 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: proposal 319 N. Van Buren
Although I do not live within a 3-block radius of 319 N. Van Buren, I go by that property many times a
week, mostly on foot. The proposed house for that lot does not qualify as a minor modification of the
zoning ordinance. It is too large (#1 ), it will be detrimental to the neighborhood (#2 ), and is not in
conformity with the intent of the comprehensive plan (#4). P restige P roperties tore down a small house
that fit the neighborhood for size and placement on the lot. I assume that Prestige knew at the time
what the comprehensive plan allowed. The proposed house is too large for the lot and for the scale of
existing houses in the neighborhood. In addition, the architectural design of the house does not fit the
neighborhood. I d o not think the modification to the zoning ordinance for this proposed house should
be granted.
Diana Harris
52 3 Brown St, Iowa City, IA 5 2 245
file:///civic/...OD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/re%20zoning%20change%20for%20319%20North%20Van%20Buren%20Street.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: Sharon DeGraw <sharondegraw@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:00 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: re: zoning change for 319 North Van Buren Street
Dear Ms Teagle,
I’m a Northside resident concerned about the requested change in zoning at 319 North Van Buren Street.
I live nearby and use this street when going downtown or visiting Northside shops because it’s a
charming street
with nice homes. I hope you do not award the request for zoning change, and do consider the following:
1) Please don’t reduce the the amount of green space – especially for a smaller-than-average lot such as
this one.
The impact of a 35-foot building would be significant and out of context in a neighborhood of one-and-a-
half and two story homes.
2) The developer should be encouraged to build at a height that’s in keeping with surrounding building
heights.
3) Granting a special zoning exception after demolishing a home in this neighborhood is concerning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sharon DeGraw
519 Brown Street
Iowa City
file:///civic/...uren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/Zoning%20Modification%20for%20319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20St..txt[4/8/2021 3:27:52 PM]
From: S Colbert <scolbert1158@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:48 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Zoning Modification for 319 N. Van Buren St.
To Marnie Teagle and whom it may concern,
I am Shawn Colbert, the owner and occupant of 415 E. Davenport St. I am writing you today to voice my
disapproval of allowing a zoning modification for 319 N. Van Buren St.
I have a few concerns with this proposal.
The first and foremost being, why do these zoning ordinances exist if the city and developers aren't
going to abide by them?
Secondly. If I as a private citizen, as opposed to a property management company, were to raze the
habitable dwelling that currently exists on my property (as was done in this case), to build a dwelling
that doesnt meet code, such as the one proposed, would it be allowed and/or would exceptions be
made for me?
Thirdly. Let's be real about what we are considering bending the rules for. This is an oversized box,
uncharacteristic of the neighborhood it resides in, being built to cram tenants into in order to generate
the maximum amount of rental income. It sets a bad precedent for the Northside neighborhood which
could potentially open it up to future overdevelopment.
Fourthly. Does the existing neighborhood infrastructure exist for a dwelling of this size?
Please contact me if there are any questions or if there is any followup information about these issues I
have brought up.
Thank you for taking these concerns into consideration as part of your decision making process for this
modification approval.
Shawn F. Colbert
415 E. Davenport St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-541-7700
file:///civic/...Buren/MOD20-0009%20Documents/Corr%20Public/Zoning%20Variance%20at%20319%20N.%20Van%20Buren%20Street.txt[4/8/2021 3:27:51 PM]
From: Fowles, Don C <don-fowles@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2021 4:57 PM
To: Marnie Teagle
Subject: Zoning Variance at 319 N. Van Buren Street
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Letter to City re 319 N Van Buren.docx
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Dear Ms. Teagle,
We have looked again at the issues associated with the above proposed property. Please see the
attached for our thoughts on the matter.
We care a lot about the character of the neighborhood. A few years ago John Kammermeyer wanted to
buy our house at 310 N. Gilbert so that he would own a quarter of a city block. He planned to sell it to
Mercy Hospital, who would have torn down all the houses on the lot. We refused to sell our property,
because it is a lovely historic building in character with the neighborhood, even though he would have
offered a generous price.
Thank you for your help.
Don & Dorothy Fowles
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 4
Appeal Application
Submitted by the Appellant
Addition to Appeal of Minor Modification for 319 N. Van Buren Street
(Board of Adjustment meeting -April 14, 2021)
Date: April 12, 2021
Addition to Appeal
On April 9 the Building Official issued a memorandum with an analysis of the Minor
Modification for 319 N. Van Buren Street. We question if this additional information
should have been submitted to the Board. Section 14-8C-3: Appeals B. Appeals
Procedures states, "The city manager or designee shall forthwith transmit to the board
all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken."
It appears that the Building Official is adding to the record after the fact. Much of this
information was not contained in the January 14 decision letter on which our appeal is
based. We are compelled to respond to this new information. We have also attached
our original appeal document to be read with the Building Official's memorandum (we
are concerned that our appeal document did not appear until page 68 of the April 14
agenda packet).
Under #1. in defense of the Minor Modification decision the Building Official states,
"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-sized plumbing fixtures." Nothing in this statement would lead one to the
conclusion that a newly constructed single-family house warrants zoning waivers
or needs to be 3 stories above grade in order to include a 2-car attached garage,
closets, and full-sized plumbing fixtures. A casual review of the City Assessor's
records reveals that there are several score of newly built houses with attached 2-car
garages, 1-and 2-stories in height, and equal to or considerably smaller than the 2-
story house that could be built on this lot (1,860 square feet of above grade area, 740
square feet of basement area, and a 380 square-foot attached garage) without any
waiver of setback requirements. It is certainly possible to include ample closets and
plumbing fixtures in such a house.
Also under #1. the Building Official states, "It is unusual for non-conforming lots to be
vacant and or redeveloped for single-family uses." Why would this justify a waiver of
zoning requirements? The vacant lot is a clean slate, the zoning rules are known to the
owner. As we demonstrate in our original appeal document, it is possible to design a
reasonably sized house and even a fairly large house on this lot and still conform with
zoning setback and height requirements.
Under #2. the Building Official states, "Many 2 and 3-story buildings are present in the
blocks surrounding the subject property including within the immediate 200-foot
notification area. 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 this area." (emphasis added)
Addition to Appeal
We looked at the properties within 200 feet. We found no 3-story buildings within the
RNS-12 zone. The zoning code defines "story" as, "The portion of a building included
between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the next floor above.
The topmost "story" shall be that habitable portion of a building included between the
upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling above." In other words, unfinished and
uninhabitable attics are not considered a story. There may be some 2-story and 2.5-
story houses with attics that have been converted to living space elsewhere in the
neighborhood, but there are no 3-story houses within the RNS-12 zone within the 200
feet area identified by the Building Official. (Using City Assessor's records and visual
cues, such as the presence of air conditioning units and window treatment, we identified
seven single-family houses within the entire RNS-12 zone with finished attics).
There is an apartment building at 322 N. Van Buren Street with 3 floors, but even that
building is only 2 and 1/2 stories in height above ground as the first floor is partially
submerged below grade and it has generous setbacks from its neighbors (12 feet on the
north and 25 feet on the south).
Some of the properties within the 200-foot radius of 319 N. Van Buren are actually
located within the Commercial Office (CO-1) zone so are not relevant to a case in the
RNS-12 zone. Even there we found only one 3-story building. It is located at 430
Bloomington Street and contains 7 apartments (again, not comparable to a single-family
house in the RNS-12 zone). Even so, it has side setbacks of at least 11 feet on both
the east and west sides, 58 feet on the north and 24 feet on the south. It also has a
pitched roof that casts much less of a shadow than a 35-foot-tall flat-roofed building.
Of the 12 properties in the RNS-12 zone within 200 feet of 319 N. Van Buren we found
these non-conformities: the 1-story house at 314 N. Gilbert Street is approximately 4
feet from the south property line while 5 feet is required; the 2-story duplex at 421/421
and 1 /2 E. Davenport Street appears to be located on the west property line while 5 feet
is required; 425 E. Davenport Street, a 847 square-foot 1.5-story house, is 2.5 feet off
the east property line and 4 feet off the west property line while 5 is required
(measurements verified with property pin).* There are two non-conforming 1-story
garages at 411 and 415 Davenport Street that are 2 feet off the property line while a 3
foot setback is required for accessory buildings. The garage at 323 N. Van Buren Street
is 2.5 feet from the south property line and 1 foot from the west. But these garages have
low pitched roofs and are located at the back of lots and therefore have little if any
negative consequences for their neighbors.
There are no 3-story buildings that are non-conforming in terms of setback in the
vicinity. There is only one 2-story building that is non-conforming. This contradicts the
Building Official's finding that the proposed 3-story 35-foot-tall building "generally
reflects the building scale and placement of structures in this area."
Prestige Properties' attorney made a similar statement in a January 8 letter in which he
wrote," .... there are other buildings in the area with a substantially similar height. 314
North Van Buren Street, 331 North Van Buren Street, 432 East Bloomington Street and
504 East Bloomington Street, for example, are all two story buildings with pitched roofs
2
Addition to Appeal
and chimneys substantially similar in height to the proposed building." Again, three of
these properties are in the CO-1 zone, not the RNS-12 zone. Even so, we measured
the height of those to which we were able to gain access.
314 N. Van Buren: 27 feet and 8 inches to the peak, and
only 25.5 feet to the midpoint between the eaves and the
roof ridge, which is the way height is measured for
zoning purposes.** It is considerably shorter than what
is proposed at 319 N. Van Buren.
504 E. Bloomington: 27.5 feet to peak. We did not measure to
midpoint but estimated to be approximately 25 feet. It is considerably
shorter than what is proposed at 319 N. Van Buren.
331 N. Van Buren: 25 feet 3 inches to the peaks on the
gable ends. There is a slightly higher peak in the center
of the roof but based on the way height is measured for
zoning purposes this house is approximately 25 feet tall.
The proposed 35-foot tall 3-story building would clearly
be out of scale with even the largest buildings in the
RNS-12 zone.
Also under #2, as a rationale as to why a 3-story building with reduced setbacks will not
be detrimental or injurious to other properties, the Building Official states, "Buildings
may be 35' in height by right regardless of the number of stories in this zoning district."
Reviewing the City Assessor's records we found no full 3-story houses regardless of
height in the RNS-12 zone, though there may be some attics that have been converted
to living space. As noted earlier, even the apartment buildings are not 3 stories above
grade and none appear to be 35 feet tall. The only buildings in the RNS-12 zone that
achieve a height of 35 feet are St. Wenceslaus Church and the Preucil School of Music.
Horace Mann School, which is located in the Public (P) zone, also achieves 35 feet and
is a full three stories in height. Each of these landmark buildings is across a public
street or well set back from any nearby dwelling.
Under #4. the Building Official states, "Light, air, and opportunities for privacy, scale,
and the physical relationship between buildings will be maintained by the observation of
other dimensional standards of the zoning code and the inherent limit on the extent of
reduction allowed by the Minor Modification of side setback." This statement makes the
3
Addition to Appeal
additional 2-foot setback required for 3-story buildings meaningless. The additional
setback is required to minimize the impact that a taller building has on its neighbors. By
reducing the setback the Building Official would permit a 3-story building to be as close
to its neighbor as permitted for a 2-story house. A 3-story building will block light and air
from its neighbors to a greater extent than a 2-story house. The Building Official's
decision does not address why a small lot should be allowed to have less setback for a
3-story building and therefore be allowed to diminish the enjoyment of neighboring
properties.
Also under #4 the Building Official states, "Allowing a range of different setback
distances to be administratively approved provides flexibility to site a building so that it
is compatible with buildings and streets in the vicinity while still meeting minimum
requirements." How is an approximate 2,700 square foot 3-story, 35-foot tall house on
a small 2,800-square-foot lot compatible with the 1-and 2-story houses found
throughout the RNS-12 zone where the average house size is 1,538 square feet and
the average lot size is 5,077 square feet? How is the proposed house with the front door
located on the second floor and a blank wall at the street level compatible with the
houses in this neighborhood?
We believe that the additional rationale found in the Building Official's April 9 memo
does not justify approval of a Minor Modification, which will diminish the enjoyment of
other properties in the neighborhood.
*we used Johnson County GIS to identify properties within 200 feet of 319 N. Van Buren Street. We
then looked at the footprint of buildings in relationship to property lines. It should be noted that
Johnson County GIS does not distinguish the foundation foot print from eaves and other building
projections that are allowed to extend into required yards (Section 14-2A-4: B.4. Building Features
Permitted Within Required Setback Area). For properties where structures appeared close to the
property line we used a tape measure to verify setbacks.
**see the next page for a graphic showing how height is measured for zoning purposes.
4
Addition to Appeal
__ _J_ - - -
2 4-2.8
One reason that height is measured to the midpoint between the eaves and the ridge or peak is because
a building with a pitched roof casts less of a shadow than a building with a flat roof. Something the
Building Official failed to consider. The following are definitions are from Zoning Code:
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance from grade to the roofline. (See definitions of grade and
roofline.)
I
ROOFLINE: The highest point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof or the midpoint
between the eaves and ridge of a saddle, hip, gable, gambrel or ogee roof.
5
Addition to Appeal
Appeal of Minor Modification for 319 N. Van Buren Street
(Board of Adjustment meeting -April 14, 2021)
Grounds for Appeal
This appeal is from the January 14, 2021 Building Official decision granting a
Minor Modification in RNS 12 zone, at 319 N. Van Buren Street to Prestige
Properties to reduce and waive side yard setbacks required for a proposed
3-story dwelling.
The Building Official's decision is incorrect. Modifications or waivers may be
granted only if five criteria are met (Zoning Code Section 14-4B-1 ). The Building
Official's decision concludes, without support or analysis, that (1) it is impractical
to comply with the setback requirements; (2) the modification will not be injurious
to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
property is located; (3) the modification conforms to the intent or purposes of the
dimensional requirements; and (4) the modification complies with other applica
ble statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations.
Factual Background
Prestige Properties has proposed a 2,660-square foot, 3-story, 4-bedroom, 4-full
bathroom house with an attached 2-car garage and single-stall carport for a total
of 3 covered parking spaces. The proposed house has a footprint of approxi
mately 900 square feet. The footprint for the house plus garage and carport is
1, 116 square feet. Under Code, the proposed 3-story structure requires a
minimum side setback of 7 feet. "The minimum side setback is 5 feet for the
first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story" (Section 14-2A-4 Dimensional
Requirements). Prestige seeks to waive the two-foot setback on the north lot line
entirely and to reduce the required setback by one foot on the south. That is,
Prestige seeks approval for construction of a 3-story building with side set
back allowances appropriate for a 2-story structure.
Appendix A to this document reports information from the City Assessor on the
171 single family properties located within the Northside RNS-12 zone. Appendix
A will be referenced throughout this document to compare Prestige Properties'
proposal to build a 2,660-square foot house with 3 covered parking spaces on a
2,800-square foot lot to what is allowed, what is intended, and what is built in the
RNS-12 zone.
Argument
Five criteria must be met before a minor modification may be granted. The appli
cant has failed to meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 as follows:
Addition to Appeal
Criteria 1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, to
pography, location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site develop
ment, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which
warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation.
Prestige asserts and the Building Official concluded without analysis or proof that
the circumstances of the lot make the strict application of the side yard setback
requirements "impractical with respect to the construction of a single-family home
desirable to a modern day homeowner" (emphasis added).
Neither Prestige nor the Building Official's decision provide any analysis of the
practicality or impracticality of complying with the requirements of the zoning
code for the small lot at issue. The proposed structure is simply ill-fitted to this
particular lot and to the neighborhood. The solution lies not in waiving applicable
zoning regulations but in amending the proposed structure to one which fits the
lot. 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 amenities
while conforming to zoning regulations. For example, the zoning code would
allow a 2-story, 25-foot-wide house with a footprint of 1,120 square feet on this
lot. This would result in 2,240 square feet of floor area. Even more floor area
could be achieved with a partial basement of 600-to 700-square feet, allowing
for a 2-car garage on grade level of the ho use. In fact, a house that fully com
plies with the zoning code would be larger than the average single-family house
in this RNS-12 zone, which is 1,538 square feet (Appendix A). Houses of such
size and features are currently being built and sold in new subdivisions of Iowa
City. This refutes Prestige' s claim and the Building Official's decision that a
waiver of setback requirements is necessary to achieve a "desirable" or "modern"
house on this property.
Criteria 2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity
and in the zone in which the property is located; and Criteria 4. The minor modi
fication requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
The intent and purpose of minimum setback requirements are spelled out in
Section 14-2A-4: B. of the Zoning Code and shown in bold italic font below.
Reducing the setback requirements in this case without adhering to the intent
and purpose of the standards will result in detriment and/or injury as follows:
a.It will diminish light and air to neighboring dwellings. The greater set
back requirement for 3-story structures recognizes the need for more space
around the building to ensure natural light and air flow for nearby properties.
Neighbors at 323 N. Van Buren, directly to the north, would be denied sunlight,
2
Addition to Appeal
especially in the winter when sunlight is crucial for enjoyment of a home. The
Building Official's letter states that the intent of the additional setback require
ment is met, but offers no analysis as how.
b.It will not provide opportunity for privacy between dwellings, nor
would it promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and
between residences. This proposed building would tower over other buildings.
It will stand 10 to 12 feet taller than the adjacent house and its windows would
look down onto and into 323 N. Van Buren. There is one modern apartment
building across the street from the subject lot which contrasts with the houses of
the neighborhood, but even that building is only 2 and 1/2 stories in height above
ground and has generous setbacks from its neighbors-12 feet on the north and
25 feet on the south.
c.It will not reflect the general building scale and placement of struc
tures in the neighborhood, nor will it be compatible with buildings in the
vicinity. At 2,800 square feet, this lot is smaller than the zoning code currently
requires for lot area and width, and is one of the smallest in the RNS-12 zone in
this neighborhood. Yet, if permitted to be built as proposed, the house
would be the largest and tallest on the block and the fifth largest house
within the entire Northside RNS-12 zone (Appendix A). By contrast, and ac
cording to the City Assessor's data, houses comparable in square footage to the
proposed Prestige property are on conforming lots ranging in size from 5,000
square feet to 16,000 square feet, not 2,800 square feet (Appendix A). The
proposed 3-story building with its flat roof and monolithic shape will visually
dominate the surrounding neighborhood.
If allowed to stand the Building Official's decision will result in a 3-story building in
a neighborhood of 1-and 2-story houses, a building which is too tall for its small
lot. This result would be counter to the intent of the setback requirements as well
as the height requirements and minimum lot area and width requirements, which
are designed and intended to "control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure con
sistency and compatibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development"
(Section 14-2A-4:A. 1 ). The Building Official's decision is not only counter
to the intent of the zoning code, it is counter to the intent of the Compre
hensive Plan to create and preserve attractive neighborhoods for the long
term.
Additional comments regarding Criteria 4. The minor modification requested is in
conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified.
Paragraph 7 of the Building Official's decision states: "The Minor Modification
conforms with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that
3
Addition to Appeal
light, air and separation for fire protection and access for firefighting are main
tained, 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,
and provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity" (emphasis added).
The decision of the Building Official offers no facts to support this statement other
than to say the arrangement of the proposed development on the lot is "similar to
other existing dwellings along alleys in this neighborhood." While it is true the
proposed placement in terms of setbacks is similar, the other properties in the
vicinity are 1-and 2-story structures and thus they are not subject to the addi
tional 2-foot minimum setback requirement. In effect, the decision concludes that
the setback requirement which applies specifically and only to 3-story buildings is
irrelevant.
According to Section 14-2A-4C (Building Bulk Standards), the height regulations
are "intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between
buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings
that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." The purpose of the
minimum setback requirements is stated in Section 14-2A-4B: "to provide oppor
tunities 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."
The decision of the Building Official does not address the purpose of the addi
tional minimum 2-foot setback. By not addressing how the setback reduction
preserves the intent of the setback requirement, the decision of the Building
Official renders the setback requirement for 3-story buildings meaningless. If the
setback can be waived solely to meet the desires of the property owner or
the developer without a compelling reason, why does the regulation exist
at all?
Contrary to the Building Official's written decision, the proposed building does
not "reflect the general scale of structures in the city's neighborhoods"; does not
"promote reasonable relationship between buildings and between residences"
and would be incompatible with the neighborhood, which consists of 1-and 2-
story houses with an average of 1,538 square feet sited on lots with an average
area of 5,077 square feet (See Appendix A).
Under the section referring to dimensional requirements, the Zoning Code states,
"Purpose: The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure
that a lot is of a size, width, and frontage that is appropriate for the uses permit-
4
Addition to Appeal
ted in the subject zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site devel
opment standards of this title can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit stand
ards control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure consistency and compat
ibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development." (Section 14-2A-
4: A) The last clause emphasizes that the size and width of a lot relates to the
intensity of what can be built there. Even if one concludes that special circum
stances apply to this lot, it does not stand to reason that zoning standards should
be modified to allow the tallest and largest house within the RNS-12 zone on this
block or the tallest and one of the largest within the entire RNS-12 zone in this
neighborhood. Should one of the smallest lots have the largest volume of
building? If allowed to be built as proposed, the house at 319 N. Van Buren
would be the fifth largest house within the entire zone even though this is one of
the smallest lots. Based on the City Assessor's data, houses comparable in
square footage to the proposed house are located on conforming lots ranging in
size from 5,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet.
While the size of this lot limits the extent of development, it does not inhibit con
struction of a single-family home consistent with surrounding development or the
RNS-12 zone, or even new houses being built in new subdivisions. One need
only look in the immediate vicinity to see that many properties are non-conform
ing with regard to lot width and/or area. Many of these are developed with
homes that are 22-24 feet in width. However, none of these are 3-story
homes. Some have garages, some do not. See Appendix A for characteristics
of properties in the RNS-12 zone.
While it may be impractical to build the proposed 3-story, 4-bedroom, 4-bath
room, 2,660-square-foot house with 3 covered parking spaces on this small lot
and comply with the zoning code, it is not impractical to build a house with the
features that one would reasonably expect to find in most homes in Iowa City-
even a fairly large modern house--on this lot and fully comply with the zoning
code.
As written in the decision letter, the Building Official appears to have made the
decision based on what is "desired" by Prestige Properties and not on the condi
tions of the lot or the intent of the zoning code. The intent of the greater setback
for 3-story buildings is to help them fit into a neighborhood by providing greater
open space around the larger buildings. The purpose, as expressed in the
zoning code, is to help ensure adequate natural light and airflow for neighboring
properties. The Building Official's decision does not merely modify the additional
2-foot setback required for a 3-story building. Rather it would waive it altogether
on the north side of the property to allow a building to be taller and larger than
otherwise permitted.
5
Addition to Appeal
Non-conformities
The Building Official appears to have based much of the decision on this being a
non-conforming lot in terms of lot area, lot width, and frontage. It is true the lot is
small and nonconforming to current zoning requirements for lot area and width.
The lot is 35 feet wide, whereas 45 feet is required. The lot area is 2,800 square
feet, while 5,000 is the minimum lot area for a single-family structure. However,
the Building Official made a factual error regarding lot frontage. The subject lot is
conforming in terms of frontage. The required minimum is 25 feet; the actual
frontage of this lot is 35 feet. (Section 14-2A-4: Dimensional Requirements.
Table 2A-2.) As detailed in Appendix A, there are several similarly situated prop
erties in this RNS-12 zone. None of them contain 3-story buildings and none of
them approach the square footage proposed at 319 N. Van Buren Street.
It should be noted that while non-conforming provisions do not prevent the
development of a house on a single-family lot, they do encourage development
to become as conforming as possible. The code states:
"A nonconforming single-family use may also be expanded, repaired and
structurally altered, provided such expansion or alteration does not in
crease or extend any other nonconforming situation of the property"
(Section 14-4E-4:B)
The code also states:
"A nonconforming structure that contains a single-family use may be re
stored to the same degree of nonconformity or less if destroyed or dam
aged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy. Such a structure
may also be repaired or structurally altered, provided such construction
does not increase or extend the degree of nonconformity and does not
increase or extend any other nonconforming situation of the property"
(Section 14-4E-4C)
While these two provisions do not directly apply to the present case, they do
illustrate the intent of the code to bring development toward conformity. The
previous house on this property was nonconforming in terms of front and side
setbacks. But the house was approximately 900 square feet in size and had only
1 and 1/2 stories. It therefore had much less effect on its neighbors than the pro
posed 3-story house. A newer house may be desirable on this lot, but to allow a
tear down of a small house on a tiny lot in order to build a structure so out of
scale as to require waivers of zoning requirements runs counter to the non-con
forming standards found in the zoning code and would set a worrisome prece
dent for older neighborhoods where there are modest and affordable homes on
lots that are smaller than the minimum lot area and lot width required by code.
6
Addition to Appeal
Addition to Appeal
APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
A basic principle of zoning is to treat similar properties consistently and to not grant
special treatment to some properties. We collected data from the City Assessor on the
171 single family properties located within the Northside RNS-12 zone to examine
application of this principle.
How does Prestige Properties' proposal to build a 2,660-square foot house with 3
covered parking spaces on a 2,800-square foot lot compare to what is allowed, what is
intended, and what is built in the RNS-12 zone?
The average size single family dwelling is 1,538 square feet. The average lot size is
5,077 square feet, which is nearly double the size lot on which Prestige proposes to
build a 2660-square foot 3-story house. Not one of the 171 properties contains a 3-
story house. Although it is possible that a few have attics that have been converted to
living space, these would be under pitched roofs and have less effect on neighboring
properties than the proposed full 3-story building with a flat roof.
The statistic illustrates what is intended by the zoning code -If you walk or drive down
the streets of the RNS-12 zone, you will see that the houses consistently range from
1-to 2-stories. There are no 3-story houses. Even the apartment buildings within the
zone tend to be only 2.5 stories above grade, with one floor partially submerged below
grade. The proposed full 3-story building would be counter to this pattern, and using the
words of the zoning code would not "Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection,
and access for firefighting; 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,
and provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity"
(Zoning Code Section 14-2A-4B).
As intended by the zoning code larger houses are located on larger lots. Within this
RNS-12 zone there are 11 houses with over 2,200 square feet. With only one exception
(418 N. Gilbert Street) these larger houses are located on lots that meet the minimum
lot area requirement of 5,000 square. Five of the larger houses are located on lots of
9,000 to 16,000 square feet. Yet Prestige Properties, with the Building Official's
approval, proposes to build one of the largest houses on one of the smallest lots. This is
counter to the intent of the zoning code to use lot area, height limits, and setbacks to
align development intensity with the size of a lot.
Of the 24 non-conforming lots similar to 319 N. Van Buren Street (2,700 to 3,100
square feet) only one property (730 Market Street) has a relatively large house on it. But
at 2,026 feet this house is still smaller than the 2,660-square foot house proposed by
Prestige Properties. The other similar non-conforming lots have houses that range from
532 square feet to 1,684 square feet with an average of 1,147 square feet. Like 319 N.
Van Buren several of these lots are non-conforming in terms of lot width with one being
as narrow at 30 feet. Yet these properties contain occupied dwellings that continue to
find a place in Iowa City's housing market. (See TABLE 1.)
8
Addition to Appeal
TABLE 1. LOTS WITH AREA OF 2700 TO 3100 SQ. FT.
Address Lot Area in Sq. Lot Width House Sq. Ft. Garage Stalls
Ft.
410 Church 2800 40 1,193 0
426 Church 3000 40 1,117 1
430 Church 3000 40 1,272 1
704 Jefferson 2800 40 1,684 0
706 Jefferson 2800 40 1.180 2
318 Linn 2880 36 1429 0
512 Van Buren 3040 37.5 1,290 2
--
510 Van Buren 3040 37.5 928 0
415 Johnson 3040 37.5 657 0
411 Johnson 3040 37.5 648 0
224 Dodge 3040 38 1,617 0
� -� ---
220 Dodge 3040 38 532 0
209 Lucas 3000 75 1,467 1
326 Fairchild 2800 40 1370 0
408 Fairchild 2760 42 979 0
514 Fairchild 3000 40 1,078 0
516 Fairchild 3000 40 1,592 1
425 Fairchild 3000 30 992 0
522 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 1
528 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 0
530 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 0
730 Market 3000 40 2,026 1
828 Market 2800 40 920 0
715 Market 2850 38 1,440 1
9
Addition to Appeal
Prestige Properties proposes to fit 3 covered parking spaces on its small lot. Of the 171
single family properties in this RNS-12 zone only 7 had more than 2 covered parking
spaces. One property had a 4-stall garage, seven had 3-stall garages. There were 24
properties with 2-stall garages, 81 with a 1-stall garage. There are 59 properties with no
garage. The lots with 3 and 4 parking spaces were large lots containing at least 6,000
square feet.
TABLE 2. GARAGE STALLS
Garages in Northside RNS-12 Zone
1-stall 80
2-stalls 24
3-stalls 7
4-stalls 1
0 covered parking 59
This data demonstrates that to achieve the intensity of development desired by Prestige
Properties it is necessary to have a larger lot. One can conclude from this data that the
Building Official errored in the decision that it is impractical to build a reasonable sized
house "desirable to a modern day homeowner'' at 319 N. Van Buren Street without a
modification of the setback requirements.
10
Addition to Appeal
Appeal of Minor Modification for 319 N. Van Buren Street
(Board of Adjustment meeting - April 14, 2021)
Grounds for Appeal
This appeal is from the January 14, 2021 Building Official decision granting a
Minor Modification in RNS 12 zone, at 319 N. Van Buren Street to Prestige
Properties to reduce and waive side yard setbacks required for a proposed
3-story dwelling.
The Building Official’s decision is incorrect. Modifications or waivers may be
granted only if five criteria are met (Zoning Code Section 14-4B-1). The Building
Official’s decision concludes, without support or analysis, that (1) it is impractical
to comply with the setback requirements; (2) the modification will not be injurious
to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the
property is located; (3) the modification conforms to the intent or purposes of the
dimensional requirements; and (4) the modification complies with other applica-
ble statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations.
Factual Background
Prestige Properties has proposed a 2,660-square foot, 3-story, 4-bedroom, 4-full
bathroom house with an attached 2-car garage and single-stall carport for a total
of 3 covered parking spaces. The proposed house has a footprint of approxi-
mately 900 square feet. The footprint for the house plus garage and carport is
1,116 square feet. Under Code, the proposed 3-story structure requires a
minimum side setback of 7 feet. “The minimum side setback is 5 feet for the
first 2 stories plus 2 feet for each additional story” (Section 14-2A-4 Dimensional
Requirements). Prestige seeks to waive the two-foot setback on the north lot line
entirely and to reduce the required setback by one foot on the south. That is,
Prestige seeks approval for construction of a 3-story building with side set-
back allowances appropriate for a 2-story structure.
Appendix A to this document reports information from the City Assessor on the
171 single family properties located within the Northside RNS-12 zone. Appendix
A will be referenced throughout this document to compare Prestige Properties’
proposal to build a 2,660-square foot house with 3 covered parking spaces on a
2,800-square foot lot to what is allowed, what is intended, and what is built in the
RNS-12 zone.
Argument
Five criteria must be met before a minor modification may be granted. The appli-
cant has failed to meet criteria 1, 2, and 4 as follows:
2
Criteria 1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, to-
pography, location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site develop-
ment, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which
warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation.
Prestige asserts and the Building Official concluded without analysis or proof that
the circumstances of the lot make the strict application of the side yard setback
requirements “impractical with respect to the construction of a single-family home
desirable to a modern day homeowner” (emphasis added).
Neither Prestige nor the Building Official’s decision provide any analysis of the
practicality or impracticality of complying with the requirements of the zoning
code for the small lot at issue. The proposed structure is simply ill-fitted to this
particular lot and t o the neighborhood. The solution lies not in waiving applicable
zoning regulations but in amending the proposed structure to one which fits the
lot. 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 amenities
while conforming to zoning regulations. For example, the zoning code would
allow a 2-story, 25-foot-wide house with a footprint of 1,120 square feet on this
lot. This would result in 2,240 square feet of floor area. Even more floor area
could be achieved with a partial basement of 600- to 700- square feet, allowing
for a 2-car garage on grade level of the house. In fact, a house that fully com-
plies with the zoning code would be larger than the average single-family house
in this RNS-12 zone, which is 1,538 square feet (Appendix A). Houses of such
size and features are currently being built and sold in new subdivisions of Iowa
City. This refutes Prestige’ s claim and the Building Official’s decision that a
waiver of setback requirements is necessary to achieve a “desirable” or “modern”
house on this property.
Criteria 2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity
and in the zone in which the property is located; and Criteria 4. The minor modi-
fication requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
The intent and purpose of minimum setback requirements are spelled out in
Section 14-2A-4: B. of the Zoning Code and shown in bold italic font below.
Reducing the setback requirements in this case without adhering to the intent
and purpose of the standards will result in detriment and/or injury as follows:
a. It will diminish light and air to neighboring dwellings. The greater set-
back requirement for 3-story structures recognizes the need for more space
around the building to ensure natural light and air flow for nearby properties.
Neighbors at 323 N. Van Buren, directly to the north, would be denied sunlight,
3
especially in the winter when sunlight is crucial for enjoyment of a home. The
Building Official’s letter states that the intent of the additional setback require-
ment is met, but offers no analysis as how.
b. It will not provide opportunity for privacy between dwellings, nor
would it promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and
between residences. This proposed building would tower over other buildings.
It will stand 10 to 12 feet taller than the adjacent house and its windows would
look down onto and into 323 N. Van Buren. There is one modern apartment
building across the street from the subject lot which contrasts with the houses of
the neighborhood, but even that building is only 2 and 1/2 stories in height above
ground and has generous setbacks from its neighbors—12 feet on the north and
25 feet on the south.
c. It will not reflect the general building scale and placement of struc-
tures in the neighborhood, nor will it be compatible with buildings in the
vicinity. At 2,800 square feet, this lot is smaller than the zoning code currently
requires for lot area and width, and is one of the smallest in the RNS-12 zone in
this neighborhood. Yet, if permitted to be built as proposed, the house
would be the largest and tallest on the block and the fifth largest house
within the entire Northside RNS-12 zone (Appendix A). By contrast, and ac-
cording to the City Assessor’s data, houses comparable in square footage to the
proposed Prestige property are on conforming lots ranging in size from 5,000
square feet to 16,000 square feet, not 2,800 square feet (Appendix A). The
proposed 3-story building with its flat roof and monolithic shape will visually
dominate the surrounding neighborhood.
If allowed to stand the Building Official’s decision will result in a 3-story building in
a neighborhood of 1- and 2-story houses, a building which is too tall for its small
lot. This result would be counter to the intent of the setback requirements as well
as the height requirements and minimum lot area and width requirements, which
are designed and intended to “control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure con-
sistency and compatibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development”
(Section 14-2A-4:A. 1). The Building Official’s decision is not only counter
to the intent of the zoning code, it is counter to the intent of the Compre-
hensive Plan to create and preserve attractive neighborhoods for the long
term.
Additional comments regarding Criteria 4. The minor modification requested is in
conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified.
Paragraph 7 of the Building Official’s decision states: “The Minor Modification
conforms with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that
4
light, air and separation for fire protection and access for firefighting are main-
tained, 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,
and provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity” (emphasis added).
The decision of the Building Official offers no facts to support this statement other
than to say the arrangement of the proposed development on the lot is “similar to
other existing dwellings along alleys in this neighborhood.” While it is true the
proposed placement in terms of setbacks is similar, the other properties in the
vicinity are 1- and 2-story structures and thus they are not subject to the addi-
tional 2-foot minimum setback requirement. In effect, the decision concludes that
the setback requirement which applies specifically and only to 3-story buildings is
irrelevant.
According to Section 14-2A-4C (Building Bulk Standards), the height regulations
are “intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between
buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings
that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity.” The purpose of the
minimum setback requirements is stated in Section 14-2A-4B: “to provide oppor-
tunities 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.”
The decision of the Building Official does not address the purpose of the addi-
tional minimum 2-foot setback. By not addressing how the setback reduction
preserves the intent of the setback requirement, the decision of the Building
Official renders the setback requirement for 3-story buildings meaningless. If the
setback can be waived solely to meet the desires of the property owner or
the developer without a compelling reason, why does the regulation exist
at all?
Contrary to the Building Official’s written decision, the proposed building does
not “reflect the general scale of structures in the city’s neighborhoods”; does not
“promote reasonable relationship between buildings and between residences”
and would be incompatible with the neighborhood, which consists of 1- and 2-
story houses with an average of 1,538 square feet sited on lots with an average
area of 5,077 square feet (See Appendix A).
Under the section referring to dimensional requirements, the Zoning Code states,
“Purpose: The minimum lot area and width requirements are intended to ensure
that a lot is of a size, width, and frontage that is appropriate for the uses permit-
5
ted in the subject zone and will ensure, in most cases, that the other site devel-
opment standards of this title can be met. The lot area per dwelling unit stand-
ards control the intensity of use on a lot to ensure consistency and compat-
ibility of new dwellings with the surrounding development.” (Section 14-2A-
4: A) The last clause emphasizes that the size and width of a lot relates to the
intensity of what can be built there. Even if one concludes that special circum-
stances apply to this lot, it does not stand t o reason that zoning standards should
be modified to allow the tallest and largest house within the RNS-12 zone on this
block or the tallest and one of the largest within the entire RNS-12 zone in this
neighborhood. Should one of the smallest lots have the largest volume of
building? If allowed to be built as proposed, the house at 319 N. Van Buren
would be the fifth largest house within the entire zone even though this is one of
the smallest lots. Based on the City Assessor’s data, houses comparable in
square footage to the proposed house are located on conforming lots ranging in
size from 5,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet.
While the size of this lot limits the extent of development, it does not inhibit con-
struction of a single-family home consistent with surrounding development or the
RNS-12 zone, or even new houses being built in new subdivisions. One need
only look in the immediate vicinity to see that many properties are non-conform-
ing with regard to lot width and/or area. Many of these are developed with
homes that are 22-24 feet in width. However, none of these are 3-story
homes. Some have garages, some do not. See Appendix A for characteristics
of properties in the RNS-12 zone.
While it may be impractical to build the proposed 3-story, 4-bedroom, 4-bath-
room, 2,660-square-foot house with 3 covered parking spaces on this small lot
and comply with the zoning code, it is not impractical to build a house with the
features that one would reasonably expect to find in most homes in Iowa City--
even a fairly large modern house--on this lot and fully comply with the zoning
code.
As written in the decision letter, the Building Official appears to have made the
decision based on what is “desired” by Prestige Properties and not on the condi-
tions of the lot or the intent of the zoning code. The intent of the greater setback
for 3-story buildings is to help them fit into a neighborhood by providing greater
open space around the larger buildings. The purpose, as expressed in the
zoning code, is to help ensure adequate natural light and airflow for neighboring
properties. The Building Official’s decision does not merely modify the additional
2-foot setback required for a 3-story building. Rather it would waive it altogether
on the north side of the property to allow a building to be taller and larger than
otherwise permitted.
6
Non-conformities
The Building Official appears t o have based much of the decision on this being a
non-conforming lot in terms of lot area, lot width, and frontage. It is true the lot is
small and nonconforming to current zoning requirements for lot area and width.
The lot is 35 feet wide, whereas 45 feet is required. The lot area is 2,800 square
feet, while 5,000 is the minimum lot area for a single-family structure. However,
the Building Official made a factual error regarding lot frontage. The subject lot is
conforming in terms of frontage. The required minimum is 25 feet; the actual
frontage of this lot is 35 feet. (Section 14-2A-4: Dimensional Requirements.
Table 2A-2.) As detailed in Appendix A, there are several similarly situated prop-
erties in this RNS-12 zone. None of them contain 3-story buildings and none of
them approach the square footage proposed at 319 N. Van Buren Street.
It should be noted that while non-conforming provisions do not prevent the
development of a house on a single-family lot, they do encourage development
to become as conforming as possible. The code states:
“A nonconforming single-family use may also be expanded, repaired and
structurally altered, provided such expansion or alteration does not in-
crease or extend any other nonconforming situation of the property”
(Section 14-4E-4:B)
The code also states:
“A nonconforming structure that contains a single-family use may be re-
stored to the same degree of nonconformity or less if destroyed or dam-
aged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy. Such a structure
may also be repaired or structurally altered, provided such construction
does not increase or extend the degree of nonconformity and does not
increase or extend any other nonconforming situation of the property”
(Section 14-4E-4C)
While these two provisions do not directly apply to the present case, they do
illustrate the intent of the code to bring development toward conformity. The
previous house on this property was nonconforming in terms of front and side
setbacks. But the house was approximately 900 square feet in size and had only
1 and 1/2 stories. It therefore had much less effect on its neighbors than the pro-
posed 3-story house. A newer house may be desirable on this lot, but to allow a
tear down of a small house on a tiny lot in order to build a structure so out of
scale as to require waivers of zoning requirements runs counter to the non-con-
forming standards found in the zoning code and would set a worrisome prece-
dent for older neighborhoods where there are modest and affordable homes on
lots that are smaller than the minimum lot area and lot width required by code.
7
For the foregoing reasons, the application of Prestige Properties for approval to
reduce and waive the additional 2-foot setback required for a 3-story building at
319 N. Van Buren Street in the RNS-12 zone should have been denied.
8
APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM IOWA CITY ASSESSOR
A basic principle of zoning is to treat similar properties consistently and to not grant
special treatment to some properties. We collected data from the City Assessor on the
171 single family properties located within the Northside RNS-12 zone to examine
application of this principle.
How does Prestige Properties’ proposal to build a 2,660-square foot house with 3
covered parking spaces on a 2,800-square foot lot compare to what is allowed, what is
intended, and what is built in the RNS-12 zone?
The average size single family dwelling is 1,538 square feet. The average lot size is
5,077 square feet, which is nearly double the size lot on which Prestige proposes to
build a 2660-square foot 3-story house. Not one of the 171 properties contains a 3-
story house. Although it is possible that a few have attics that have been converted to
living space, these would be under pitched roofs and have less effect on neighboring
properties than the proposed full 3-story building with a flat roof.
The statistic illustrates what is intended by the zoning code — If you walk or drive down
the streets of the RNS-12 zone, you will see that the houses consistently range from
1- to 2-stories. There are no 3-story houses. Even the apartment buildings within the
zone tend to be only 2.5 stories above grade, with one floor partially submerged below
grade. The proposed full 3-story building would be counter to this pattern, and using the
words of the zoning code would not “Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection,
and access for firefighting; 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,
and provide flexibility to site a building so it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity”
(Zoning Code Section 14-2A-4B).
As intended by the zoning code larger houses are located on larger lots. Within this
RNS-12 zone there are 11 houses with over 2,200 square feet. With only one exception
(418 N. Gilbert Street) these larger houses are located on lots that meet the minimum
lot area requirement of 5,000 square. Five of the larger houses are located on lots of
9,000 to 16,000 square feet. Yet Prestige Properties, with the Building Official’s
approval, proposes to build one of the largest houses on one of the smallest lots. This is
counter to the intent of the zoning code to use lot area, height limits, and setbacks to
align development intensity with the size of a lot.
Of the 24 non-conforming lots similar to 319 N. Van Buren Street (2,700 to 3,100
square feet) only one property (730 Market Street) has a relatively large house on it. But
at 2,026 feet this house is still smaller than the 2,660-square foot house proposed by
Prestige Properties. The other similar non-conforming lots have houses that range from
532 square feet to 1,684 square feet with an average of 1,147 square feet. Like 319 N.
Van Buren several of these lots are non-conforming in terms of lot width with one being
as narrow at 30 feet. Yet these properties contain occupied dwellings that continue to
find a place in Iowa City’s housing market. (See TABLE 1.)
9
TABLE 1. LOTS WITH AREA OF 2700 TO 3100 SQ. FT.
Address Lot Area in Sq.
Ft.
Lot Width House Sq. Ft. Garage Stalls
410 Church 2800 40 1,193 0
426 Church 3000 40 1,117 1
430 Church 3000 40 1,272 1
704 Jefferson 2800 40 1,684 0
706 Jefferson 2800 40 1.180 2
318 Linn 2880 36 1429 0
512 Van Buren 3040 37.5 1,290 2
510 Van Buren 3040 37.5 928 0
415 Johnson 3040 37.5 657 0
411 Johnson 3040 37.5 648 0
224 Dodge 3040 38 1,617 0
220 Dodge 3040 38 532 0
209 Lucas 3000 75 1,467 1
326 Fairchild 2800 40 1370 0
408 Fairchild 2760 42 979 0
514 Fairchild 3000 40 1,078 0
516 Fairchild 3000 40 1,592 1
425 Fairchild 3000 30 992 0
522 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 1
528 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 0
530 Davenport 3000 40 1,396 0
730 Market 3000 40 2,026 1
828 Market 2800 40 920 0
715 Market 2850 38 1,440 1
10
Prestige Properties proposes to fit 3 covered parking spaces on its small lot. Of the 171
single family properties in this RNS-12 zone only 7 had more than 2 covered parking
spaces. One property had a 4-stall garage, seven had 3-stall garages. There were 24
properties with 2-stall garages, 81 with a 1-stall garage. There are 59 properties with no
garage. The lots with 3 and 4 parking spaces were large lots containing at least 6,000
square feet.
TABLE 2. GARAGE STALLS
Garages in Northside RNS-12 Zone
1-stall 80
2-stalls 24
3-stalls 7
4-stalls 1
0 covered parking 59
This data demonstrates that to achieve the intensity of development desired by Prestige
Properties it is necessary to have a larger lot. One can conclude from this data that the
Building Official errored in the decision that it is impractical to build a reasonable sized
house “desirable to a modern day homeowner” at 319 N. Van Buren Street without a
modification of the setback requirements.
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 5
Neighborhood Mailing Materials
Prepared by Staff
March 17, 2021
RE: Appeal regarding property at 319 N. Van Buren Street
Dear Property Owner:
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an appeal submitted by David Moore.
The appeal challenges a Minor Modification reducing the required 7 foot side setback
along the north property line by 2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot for the
property located at 319 N. Van Buren 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 electronic public meeting
tentatively scheduled for April 14, 2021 at 5:15 p.m. Because the meeting is subject to
change, check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/BOA, the week of the
meeting to confirm the meeting agenda.
You may also submit written information for consideration in advance of the meeting, and
I will include your comments in the information to be considered by the Board.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230 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
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.icgov.org/BOA the Monday before the
meeting. Providing comment in person is not an option.
What is the Board of Adjustment?
The Board of Adjustment is panel made
up of Iowa City citizens appointed by
the City Council. The board reviews and
grants special exceptions and variances
and also considers appeals when there
is a disagreement about an
administrative zoning decision made by
the City. Members of the board act like
judges, making decisions about
individual properties and uses that may
have difficulty meeting a specific
zoning regulation or to resolve disputes
about administrative zoning decisions.
The actions and decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are binding upon all
parties unless overturned upon appeal
to District Court.
What is a special exception?
There are two types of special
exceptions.
1. Within the zoning code a number
of land uses are set apart as special
exceptions that may be permitted
in certain zones. Rather than
permitting these uses outright,
each is reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to ensure that they do not
negatively affect surrounding
properties. For example, daycare
centers are permitted in residential
zones by special exception. The
same is true of churches and private
schools. All may be appropriate
uses in residential zones, if certain
criteria such as parking, screening,
and other requirements are met.
2. Adjustments to specific zoning
requirements in cases where there
are unique circumstances. Again,
the opportunity to adjust these
requirements and the criteria for
allowing such adjustments are
described in the Zoning Code. For
example, a homeowner may apply
for a reduction in a building setback
in order to accommodate an
addition or other improvement to
their property.
The Zoning Code lists explicitly each
use and standard for which a special
exception may be considered. In other
words, you can’t request a special
exception for everything—only those
things called out as special exceptions
in the Code. The Code also provides
criteria specific to each request.
Applicants must provide evidence that
they satisfy each of these criteria, and
the Board must consider these criteria
when making a determination as to
whether to grant a special exception.
What is a variance?
A variance grants a legal right to an
owner to develop property in a manner
that deviates from a specific provision
of the Zoning Code and for which a
special exception is not expressly
allowed. In seeking relief from the
restrictions in the Zoning Code, the
property owner applying for the
variance must show that the strict
application of the Zoning Code would
cause and unnecessary hardship such
that the property in question is
unusable or that a literal interpretation
of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the zoning
district. In addition the circumstances
that create this hardship must be
unique to the property in question and
must not be of the property owner’s
own making.
What is an appeal?
The Board considers and rules on
appeals from any citizen who believes
there is an error in any decision,
determination, or interpretation made
by the City or its designee in the
administration of the Zoning Code. As
with their other decisions, the Board’s
ruling is binding on all parties unless
overturned on appeal to the District
Court.
How does the review process
work?
An application requesting a special
exception, variance, or an appeal is a
request. The Board makes a decision on
whether to grant a specific request only
after City staff have provided a review
of an application and the public has had
an opportunity to make its concerns
known. The Board not only has the right
to approve or deny requests, but may
also choose to approve request subject
to certain conditions.
In making decisions, the Board may only
consider comments and evidence
relevant to the specific standards
provided in the code. City Development
Staff provide reports to the Board for
each application on the agenda. The
Staff Report provides background
information on the application, informs
the Board of all the criteria in the Code
that a particular application must
satisfy, and interprets whether and
how an application has satisfied these
criteria.
How can I participate in the
process?
Because most applications will be
reviewed and decided upon at a single
public hearing, it is important for
interested parties to respond in a
timely and informed manner. Those
who wish to speak for or against an
application are given an opportunity to
be heard by the Board at the hearing,
but may also submit written comments
prior to the meeting.
Written comments must be delivered to
the Department of Neighborhood &
Development Services at City Hall no
later than 5 days before the hearing in
order to be included with the Staff
Report. All correspondence submitted
after that time will be delivered to the
Board at the time of the hearing.
The Board considers the application,
the recommendation of staff (in the
staff report) and any additional
information, correspondence, or
testimony provided at the hearing.
Board of Adjustment hearings are
usually held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J.
Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find
more information at the following
website: www.icgov.org/boa.
The Staff Report can be very useful to
anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA
process or with the Zoning Code and
will provide an understanding of the
criteria that the Board must consider in
rendering its decision. Staff Reports
may be obtained from the Department
of Neighborhood & Development
Services. E-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org to request a copy of a report.
If you have questions about an
application or if you simply want more
information about issues related to the
Board of Adjustment, please feel free
to contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5230 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
To submit comments to the Board of
Adjustment write to the Board of
Adjustment c/o the Department of
Neighborhood & Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions
N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STE BLOOMINGTON ST
E DAVENPORT ST
APL21-0001319 N. Van Buren St.µ
0 0.015 0.030.0075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An appeal submitted by Dave Moore to overturn a decision of the Building Official approving a Minor Modification reducing the required 7 foot side setback along the north property line by 2 feet and along the south property line by 1 foot.
Mailing Name Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code Property Address406 NVB LLC PO BOX 3049 IOWA CITY, IA 52244‐3049 406 N VAN BUREN ST ADAM DREYFUSS GALLUZZO 430 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 430 E DAVENPORT ST ANDREW J & LINDSEY R LITTON 331 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 331 N VAN BUREN ST AUDITORS OFFICE 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 100 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 AUDITOR'S OFFICE 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 101 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 BL‐1 LLC PO BOX 3047 IOWA CITY, IA 52244‐3047 522 E BLOOMINGTON ST BLOOMINGTON BLDG PROPS LLC 510 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 510 E BLOOMINGTON ST BLOOMINGTON STREET PROPERTIES 5 KIMBALL RD IOWA CITY, IA 52245 430 E BLOOMINGTON ST DARLENE CLAUSEN 508 E BLOOMINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 508 E BLOOMINGTON ST DAVID MOORE 425 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 425 E DAVENPORT ST DON C & DOROTHY L FOWLES 4655 RUNNING DEER WOODS NE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 310 N GILBERT ST ELISABETH JEWELL 607 E WASHINGTON ST MOUNT PLEASANT, IA 52641 424 E DAVENPORT ST ERP LLC 1530 IWV RD SW OXFORD, IA 52322 411 E DAVENPORT ST FIRST HAWK LLC 873 NORMANDY DR IOWA CITY, IA 52246 327 N JOHNSON ST I C RENTALS LC 741 OAKLAND AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 331 N JOHNSON ST JAMES B & BECKY J BUXTON 1811 MUSCATINE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 402 E DAVENPORT ST JAMES C SHAW 718 KIMBALL AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52245 420 E DAVENPORT ST JASON D VARDAMAN 315 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 315 N VAN BUREN ST JULIA ELLA LEUPOLD REVOCABLE T 13515 253RD AVE SPIRIT LAKE, IA 51360 318 N GILBERT ST LAKE & LAKE LC 1912 FLATIRON AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52240 502 E DAVENPORT ST M322 LLC PO BOX 3049 IOWA CITY, IA 52244‐3049 322 N VAN BUREN ST MARLIN R INGALLS 515 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 515 E DAVENPORT ST MARVIN M ROSHEK TRUST 590 W FOREVERGREEN RD NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 415 N VAN BUREN ST MERCY HOSPITAL 500 E MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 230 N GILBERT ST MICHAEL T & KELLEY A MCLAUGHLI 614 PINE RIDGE RD CORALVILLE, IA 52241 421 E DAVENPORT ST MSL JCL, LC 228 WOOLF AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52246 504 E BLOOMINGTON ST OSCAR C BEASLEY 211 N 1ST AVE APT 1 IOWA CITY, IA 52245‐3643 321 N JOHNSON ST PRESTIGE PROPERTIES DEV LLC 329 E COURT ST STE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 319 N VAN BUREN ST PRESTIGE PROPERTIES IV LLC 329 E COURT ST SUITE 2 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 412 E BLOOMINGTON ST REM PROPERTIES L C 953 WEEBER ST IOWA CITY, IA 52246 508 E DAVENPORT ST RICHARD E MASON 953 WEEBER ST IOWA CITY, IA 52246 509 E DAVENPORT ST RONALD R COCHRAN PO BOX 2 WEST BRANCH, IA 52358‐0002 SHANNON A HEIMAN 410 N VAN BUREN ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 410 N VAN BUREN ST SHAWN F COLBERT 415 E DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 415 E DAVENPORT ST STEVE V NASH 1113 PRAIRIE GRASS LN IOWA CITY, IA 52246 314 N VAN BUREN ST STEVEN G & MARY L REICHARDT 512 DAVENPORT ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 512 E DAVENPORT ST THOMAS R SCOTT 419 E FAIRCHILD ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 414 E DAVENPORT ST YOUTH HOMES INC 1916 WATERFRONT DR IOWA CITY, IA 52240
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
ATTACHMENT 6
Correspondence
Submitted by Members of the Public
From:andrew kramer
To:Kirk Lehmann; Glietnz@northliberty.org
Cc:James Larew
Subject:319 Van Buren - Statement of Larew
Date:Monday, April 12, 2021 11:52:14 AM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
319 Van Buren. Statement of James C. Larew 4.12.21.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Good morning,
Please find attached a statement from James C. Larew regarding 319 Van Buren.
Thank you,
Andrew Kramer
Paralegal
Larew Law Office
Office: 319.337.7079
Fax: 319.337.7082
504 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa City, IA. 52245
252 E. 3rd Street, Des Moines, IA. 50309
210 Cedar Street, Muscatine, IA 52761
Important: This communication and any files attached to it may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the named recipient/addressee of this
communication, please notify the sender and delete and destroy all forms of this communication (electronic or
paper).
Additional Correspondence 1
· Main Office504 E. Bloomington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2858
LAREW LAW OFFICE
LarewLawOffice.com
Phone: 319.337.7079 Fax: 319.337.7082
210 Cedar St. Muscatine, Iowa 52761-2504 252 E. 3rd Street Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4114
James C. Larew I Deborah Svec-Carstens I Claire M. Diallo
James. Larew@LarewLawOfficc.com Deborah.Svec-Carstcns@Larcwl.11wOffice.com Claire.Dial lo@LarcwLawOfficc.com
(319) 541-4240 (319) 337-7079 Admitted in Iowa. NY and NJ
Sent via Email: Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org; Glientz@northliberty.org
To: Members of the Iowa City Board of Adjustment
From: James C. Larew
Re: Appeal of Application for Minor Modification
319 N. Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa
I represent myself and my spouse, Mary S. Larew, who, together, own a
limited liability company, MSLJCL, LC, which is the title holder to a restored
Victorian home located at 504 E Bloomington Street, in Iowa City, less than 100
feet from 319 N. Van Buren Street, the subject of this proceeding.
I believe that the action of the City of Iowa City ("City") to approve what
has been characterized by the City as a "minor modification" for plans to build a
thirty-five-foot-high, three-story, four-bedroom, four-full-bath, three-car-stalled,
box-shaped structure with a flat roof on one of the smaller lots in the Northside
neighborhood, is clearly contrary to law and should be reversed.
The Minor Modification Decision, issued on January 14, 2021, by Danielle
Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator and Building Official for the City of
Iowa City, is in error pursuant to two independent, yet reinforcing, reasons:
1.Iowa City's Municipal Code sections 14-4B-lA-7 and 14-4B-1.A.7, on
their face and as applied to the application for a "minor
modification" concerning property located at 319 N. Van Buren
Street, are in violation of Iowa's Constitution, of Iowa's home rule
statutes related to the limited powers of the Board of Adjustment,
and of Iowa's common law.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 1
Additional Correspondence 1
2.Even if one were to assume, arguendo, that these Municipal Code
sections are lawful, when the material facts are objectively
considered by the Bo ard of Adjustment no reasonable finding could
be made that the Iowa City's zoning ordinances, when applied to 319
N.Van Buren Street, create an impracticality such as to relieve the
owners of the proposed structure of their duty fully to abide by the
applicable zone's side-yard setback requirements.
A.BACKGROUND FACTS AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Prestige Properties Development, LLC, e•Prestige" or "Owner"), the current
owner of319 N. Van Buren Street ("Property"), in conjunction with prospective
purchasers, Dr. Brian Richards and Dr. Bronwen Richards ("Purchasers"), of
LeClaire, Iowa, seek exceptions to the Zoning Chapter of the Code Municipal
Ordinances ("Municipal Code") of the City of Iowa City ("City") to accommodate
their goal of constructing, on one of the smallest lots in the Northside
Neighborhood, a thirty-five-foot high, three-story, four-bedroom, four-full-bath,
three-car-stalled, box-shaped structure with a flat roof.
To compress the construction of a very large building onto a very small
lot-a lot upon which a smaller, functional, single-family dwelling once stood,
before it was demolished by Prestige-the Owner and Purchasers seek approval of
a zone-required side-yard set-back reduction ofup to two feet (2') of the lot's north
side boundary, and a zone-required side-yard set-back reduction of I foot (l ') from
of the lot's south side boundary.
Although characterized under Municipal Code § 14-4B-1 as a request for a
"Minor Modification," in fact, any reasonable interpretation of Municipal Code §
14-4B-IA-7 under Iowa law causes one to conclude that the Owner and Purchasers
are really seeking, in effect, what amounts to an "area variance," based upon their
showing that it would be "impractical" for them to comply with the side-yard set
back requirements of Iowa City's RNS-12 Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
zoning requirements.
In fact, for more than sixty years, the Iowa Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that area variances such as this one cannot be granted by a City Board of
Adjustment except under the most unusual circumstances, and not merely upon an
allegation of perceived inconveniences. Rather, the requisite showing by a
proponent of an area variance is a much more difficult one to prove: that an
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page2
Additional Correspondence 1
That is not enough.
Accommodations inconsistent with the law cann ot, and should not, be shoe
horned in by Building Officials to appease particular persons with existing and
future ownership interests in real pr operty. Municipal Code§§ 14-4B-1 and 14-
4B-1A-7 purport to substitute Iowa law's strict "unnecessary hardship" test with a
diluted "practical difficulty" test for area variances by re-characterizing them as
mere "minor modifications." The attempted dilution should be stopped, here. The
application for a Minor Modification should be denied in its entirety. This body
should direct the City Council to review and revise these Municipal Code
provisions to assure that they conform fully with Iowa's constitution, statutes and
common law.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street. Iowa City, Iowa Page 3
Additional Correspondence 1
"unnecessary hardship" would be created if a requested variance is not granted.
That situation is not found here, under any reasonable interpretation of the facts.
The clear limits of the Iowa City Board of Adjustment authority to grant any
exemptions, such as to zoning ordinance area variances, are firmly established by
Iowa General Assembly under constitutional provisions related to home rule
authority. Those strict limits with respect to the enforcement of area variances have
been frequently reinforced by the Iowa Supreme Court, most recently on February
26, 2021, in Earley v Bd of Adjustment, 955 N.W. 2d 812 (Iowa 2021).
Our highest court in that case reversed a decision of the Cerro Gordo County
Board of Adjustment's decision to allow a homeowner with property on Clear
Lake to build onto an existing home a side porch whose perimeter had encroached
upon the area protected by the county zoning ordinance's side-yard set-back
requirement: exactly the kind a exception that the owners of 319 N. Van Buren
seek in this instance.
Drawing on consistent prior holdings rendered over more than six-decades,
the Earley Court determined, yet again, that an area variance can be granted where,
and only where, the application of the zoning regulation in question to a particular
piece of property greatly decreases or practically destroys its value for any
permitted use. Clearly, that is not the case, here. Rather, the (unproven) allegation
made here by the Owner and Purchasers is that to abide by the City's zoning
ordinance would be merely "impractical."
B.ARGUMENT
1.Iowa City's Municipal Code sections 14-48-lA-7 and 14-4B-l.A.7, on
their face and as applied to the application for a "minor
modification" concerning property located at 319 N. Van Buren
Street, are in violation of Iowa's Constitution, of Iowa's home rule
statutes related the limited powers of the Board of Adiustment, and
of Iowa's common law.
Zoning law in Iowa is governed by our state Constitution, by state statutes,
by local ordinances, and by the Iowa Supreme Court's common law interpretations
of them.
The Iowa Constitution, at Article III, § 38A, adopted in 1968, grants home
rule authority to cities, as follows:
Municipal home rule. Municipal corporations are granted home rule power
and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to
determine their local affairs and government, except that they shall not have
power to levy any tax unless expressly authorized by the general assembly.
The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and
can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the
law of this state.
This constitutional grant of authority has been supplemented by a statutory
recognition of home rule authority by cities. One of those provisions occurs in
Iowa Code Chapter 364, titled, the "Power and Duties of City," under which a
number of provisions appear that are germane to these proceedings.
Under Iowa Code § 364.1 :
"A city may, except as expressly lim ited by the Constitution of the State of
Iowa, and if not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, exercise
any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and
preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and
to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and
convenience of its residents. This grant of home rule powers does not
include the power to enact private or civil law governing civil relationships,
except as incident to an exercise of an independent city power."
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street. Iowa Cit;y, Iowa Page4
Additional Correspondence 1
"I. A power of a city is vested in the city council except as otherwise
provided by a state law.
2.The enumeration of a specific power of a city does not limit or restrict the
general grant of home rule power conferred by the Constitution of the State
of Iowa. A city may exercise its general powers subject only to limitations
expressly imposed by a state or city law.
3.An exercise of a city power is not inconsistent with a state law unless it is
irreconcilable 1 with the state law.,, . . . . .
Further, under Iowa Code§ 364.3(3)(a):
"A city may not set standards and requirements which are lower or less
stringent than those imposed by state law, but may set standards and
requirements which are higher or more stringent than those imposed by state
law, unless a state law provides otherwise."
Pursuant to Iowa Code§ 414.7, cities are required to create boards of
adjustment with five citizen members who are empowered, among other things to
interpret, implement, and enforce zoning ordinances. Iowa Code§ 414.12(3) sets
forth a strict standard for the granting of any variance.
"[A board of adjustment is granted the power] to authorize upon appeal in
specific cases such variance from the tenns of the ordinance as will not be
contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done." (emphasis added)
The general rule is that the authority to grant an area variance should be
exercised by a board of adjustment sparingly and only under exceptional
circumstances. Drawing on this statutory standard, and this general rule, the Iowa
Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently defined an "unnecessary hardship."
1 A local law is "irreconcilable" with state law when the local law "'prohibits an act
permitted by statute, or pennits an act prohibited by a statute.'" Goodell v.
Humboldt Cty., 575 N.W.2d 486,500 (Iowa 1998)(citation omitted).
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Pages
Additional Correspondence 1
Under Iowa Code§ 364.2:
I.The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in that zone;
2.The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions in the neighborhood; and
3.The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Id., at 81.
The test is strictly limiting, its burdens are onerous; as a result, a board of
adjustment is very constrained in its authority to grant any area variances. Under
Deardorf, a board of adjustment may award an area variance:
" ... where, and only where, the application of the regulation in question to
particular property greatly decreases or practically destroys its value for
any permitted use, or where such application bears so little relationship to
the purposes of zoning that, as to the property in question, the regulation is
in effect confiscatory, arbitrary, or capricious, or constitutes an unnecessary,
unwarranted, or unjust invasion of, or interference with, a fundamental right
of property."
Deardorf, at 82 ( emphasis added). Under that legal test, the question is not
whether the applicant-property could be improved or "more profit could be made if
a variance is granted. Rather, the standard is whether a reasonable return cannot be
garnered from a pennitted use." Graziano v Board of Adjustment, 323 N.W. 2d
233,237 (Iowa 1982). A lack of a reasonable return may be shown by proof that
the owner has been deprived of all beneficial use of his land. The infringement of
peaceful enjoyment must equal a denial of all beneficial use. Greenawalt v Board
of Adjustment, 345 N.W. 2d 537, 542-43 (Iowa 1984).
Under the Deardorf test, the Iowa Supreme Court has consistently and
repeatedly denied efforts to circumvent area restrictions, such as here, side-yard
set-back restrictions that are set forth in City and County zoning ordinances. That
is to say, even the most modest request for area variances that are fully supported
by neighbors-a striking contrast to the application made by the owner of 319 N.
Van Buren Street-must be denied by boards of adjustment where only "practical"
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page6
Additional Correspondence 1
In 1962, in Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment, 118 N.W.2d 78 (Iowa 1962), a three
part test was adopted establish that tenn's parameters. Under it, a landowner must
show that:
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page7
Additional Correspondence 1
difficulties ( and not "unnecessary hardships") are imposed by area restrictions
established in zoning ordinances.
It is not legally sufficient for a property owner to claim that only minor
tweaks of technical requirements are sought. The very essence of the "minor
modification" approach created under Iowa City Municipal Code§§ 14-4B-1 and
14-4B-1 A-7 impermissibly blurs the bright-line "unnecessary hardship" test
established under Deardo,f and is, therefore, inconsistent with state law.
In Deardorf, the bell-weather opinion Iowa Supreme Court issued nearly
sixty years ago, a local board of adjustment's allowance of a property owner to
build an apartment house taller than the zoning ordinance was denied. Id., at 79-83.
In a subsequent instance, the Greenawalt case, our highest court denied a
landowner's attempt to place a six-foot-high fence around the perimeter of a lot
troubled by vandalism, in an area whose zone restricted such fences to 42 inches in
height. Greenawalt, at 543-44. In Earley, the most recent case, the Iowa Supreme
Court denied an area variance to a family that had inadvertently violated a side
yard set-back requirement when they built a side porch onto an existing house
whose foundations had been built too close to the side-yard property line.
Some may complain that such a strict enforcement of area restrictions, under
Iowa's statutes and resulting common law, impose too high a burden, or
"impracticalities," on property owners. Such persons may point to the fact that in
the past twenty years, a number of states, both by legislation and by state appellate
court decisions, have abandoned strict Deardorf-type zoning restrictions and,
instead, have allowed area (but, generally, not use) variances based on less
onerous showings based on such "impracticalities."2
In this instance, although characterized as a mere "minor modification" of
Iowa City's zoning ordinance applied to property located at 319 N. Van Buren
Street, an area zoned as RNS-12, in fact, under Iowa City Municipal Code§§ 14-
4B-1 and 14-4B-IA-7, the owners seek what is, in fact, an area variance. An area
variance does not involve a use that is prohibited by an ordinance, but rather
concerns a deviation from specific requirement such as height limitations, setback
lines, size regulations, and the like. City of Johnston v Christenson, 718 N.W.2d
290, 299 n.4 (Iowa 2006).
2
California; Minnesota; Missouri; New Hampshire; Ohio; Pennsylvania;
Wisconsin. See: N. William Hines, Difficulties Standard/or Area Variances, 102
Iowa L. Rev. Online 365 (2018).
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page8
Additional Correspondence 1
But, the law in Iowa is clear: a city board of adjustment is not authorized to
grant an area variance unless the landowner requesting the area variance can
satisfy all three parts of the Deardorftest to prove that the enforcement of a zoning
ordinance, without a variance, will result in an "unnecessary hardship" precluding
the owner from making a reasonable use of the land and cannot earn a reasonable
rate of return.
The Board of Adjustment is asked to do that which Iowa law prohibits.
The Iowa City zoning ordinance wrongfully empowers a building official or
designee to grant "minor modifications" from certain area restrictions clearly
established under applicable zoning provisions. Iowa City Ord. 14-4B-1. "Minor
modification reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations applicable to the
property, for which strict application of the regulations is impractical." Id. The
building official may grant minor modifications "provided the approval criteria are
met." But the use of such discretionary power is exactly what the Iowa Supreme
Court has consistently prohibited.
In fact, the only way that the owner of 319 N. Van Buren Street can build
the proposed building, using described footprint specifications, is by filing of a
special exception or variance application with the Board of Adjustment. Iowa City
Ord. 14-4B-l(A). Moreover, in such an instance, to obtain a variance, the owners
will be required to demonstrate full compliance with the three-part Deardorftest
something that the present record proves cannot be achieved.
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment cannot do what Iowa law does not
empower it to do. As such, the application for a Minor Modification for 319 N.
Van Buren Street-based on a desire to squeeze a little more floor space for an
expansive three-structure housing structure on one of the smallest lots in Iowa
City's historic Northside Neighborhood-should be denied in its entirety.
2.Even if one were to assume, arguendo, that these Municipal Code
sections are lawful, when the material facts are objectively
considered by the Bo ard of Adjustment no reasonable finding could
be made that the Iowa City's zoning ordinances, when applied to 319
N.Van Buren Street, create an impracticality such as to relieve the
owners of the proposed structure of their duty fully to abide by the
applicable zone's side-yard setback requirem ents.
For more than a century, at least since the 1870's, 319 N. Van Buren Street
was the site of a charming, modest, one-story frame house whose footprint,
including its front stoop, was 744 square feet. That footprint filled a little more
than one-fourth of the lot, whose perimeter measures 35 feet by 80 feet, and whose
total size is about 2800 square feet. For many of those years, a small, one-vehicle
garage stood at the westerly end of the Property, allowing vehicular access to-and
from the City-owned alley, which runs, on an east-west axis, along the parcel's
southerly border. That alley is used by the general public, including, principally,
owners of properties that face Bloomington Street, to the south, and East
Davenport Street, to the north.
Alternating ownership controlled the Property's fate for more than the past
half century, when the structure provided housing to many persons. On the one
hand, there were longer-term owners ( e.g., the Emma Elberts Trust, from 1954 to
1980; the Collins' family, from 1983 to 1988-cluring which time new siding and
windows were installed; and Scott Ronny Tomer, from 1993 to 2012). On the
other hand, there were multiple, serial ownership flippers (e.g., Walters, Yansky,
Blair, intermittently, between 1988 and 1993). While in Mr. Tomer's ownership,
according to City records, general internal remodeling improvements were made to
the Property.
According to City records, the present owner, Prestige, purchased the
Property from Mr. Tomer on January 10, 2012, and initially rented it to residential
tenants. Prestige has been buying housing properties in the Northside
Neighborhood area for years, largely operating them as rentals. According to those
same records, Prestige is now one of the largest property owners in the area. It
rents mostly to college students. While student residents are an important part of
the City's population, it is also the case that as the number of student-rental units
increases in the neighborhood, housing options are diminished for retirees, lower
income residents, young couples, and families with children who wish to live near
Horace Mann School and downtown.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page9
Additional Correspondence 1
City records document no structural improvements made to the Property
during Prestige's ownership of it. In fact, the Property did not fare well under
Prestige's possession. Five and one-half years after buy ing it, in 2017, Prestige
applied for a demolition permit. The City issued it and the structure was torn
down. An examination of the City's records does not reveal how the condition of
this residential rental property so rapidly deteriorated, to the extent that
necessitated its condemnation and removal. But, under the City's rental regulatory
supervision, that is what happened.
Similarly, even though applicable zoning provisions do not appear to permit
such uses, for more than two years thereafter, from the date of the structure's
demolition up to the present date, the Prop erty's unpaved, barren ground has been
used by the Owner to store raw piles of building materials (dirt, gravel) and to park
cars. The City's lax enforcement of Municipal Code provisions applicable to such
uses is not inconsistent with its actions with respect to the current application for a
"Minor Modification."
A further, curious feature about this Property, one that involves the public's
interest, and not just the interests of the current and previous owners-of-record, is
the extent to which it has benefited from spot-zoning. As the result of generations
of residents' support and local political activism, the Northside Neighborhood
enjoys zoning protections, such as the City's Comprehensive Plan, the adjacent
Horace Mann / Goosetown Conservation District and the Historic Conservation
Overlay. However, and for reasons that do not appear in the record of this
proceeding, thus far, a special, carved-out zoning status has been preserved for this
particular Property. This parcel, and not its immediate real property neighbors, has
been specially zoned by the City as a RNS 12 (Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential Zone), and not as a part of the Historic Conservation Overlay.
The latter designation, which applies to most surrounding property, is
intended to give added measures of protection to property owners who have
invested in their homes and neighborhood amenities against those who might
otherwise be inclined to drop a large, modern, cut-and-paste-designed, oversized
building, readied for concentrated tenant occupancy, on to a lot that is too small for
the project. A property whose owner is reasonably perceived by neighboring
property owners to be receiving special zoning treatment, under the City's
regulatory authority, can and, predictably, will result in conflicts amongst
neighbors.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 10
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
That is what is happening here.
This troubling course of regulatory events is inconsistent with any professed
commitment by the City, in its planning documents, " ... to maintain, improve and
reinvest in older housing stock." It is clear, however, that if remaining threads of
applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter are properly applied to the known
facts of this request for special treatment, a proper outcome can be achieved in this
instance: the denial of the Prestige's request for an exemption from the important
set-back requirements of the RNS-12 zoning district.
To support its request for special zoning privileges from the City, taken in
the form of a "Minor Modification" of si de-yard set-back requirements that are
imposed on all properties located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential
Zone (RNS-12), Prestige brought to the earlier January 6, 2021, Minor
Modification Hearing a series of witnesses to speak in support of the application.
These witnesses included the prospective purchasers of the Property from Prestige,
Dr. Brian Richards and Dr. Bronwen Richards (hereafter, "Purchasers" or "Drs.
Richards"), residents ofLeClaire, Iowa, each of them self-employed as
accomplished dental specialists in the Quad Cities area.
According to the account expressed by them at the Hearing, the Purchasers,
years ago, before moving to the Quad Cities, had owned and resided at 315 North
Van Buren ("315"), located just across the alley, to the south, from 319 North Van
Buren.3 According to Dr. Brian Richards, he and his spouse "love the area" (the
only area discussed at the Hearing were the two addresses-315 and 319 North
Van Buren Street) and that they had "worked really hard" to "actually get back
there." He expressed the couple's observation that if they "had to do it over again"
they probably wouldn't have sold "the little white house [315]" to Jason "Jake"
Vardaman, who was also present at the Hearing. 4
3 The summary of the statements made by the Purchasers are made from best
available notes of the meeting. If the City recorded the January 6 meeting, such
recording has not yet been made available to the public on the City's website.
4 Mr. Vardaman, both at the Hearing and in written communication with the City,
has expressed his opposition to the proposed plans to construct the residential
building at 319 N Van Buren Street. He believes that the reduced side yard
restriction will cause vehicles moving in and out of the three garage slots to run
into his fences and cause property damage to his residential home. He also objects
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 11
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
Dr. Brian Richards stated further that, knowing that he and his spouse
"wanted to go back to the area," they "saw the lot available [319] [ and] decided to
try building." Dr. Brian Richards acknowledged the fact that the lot was small and
would "have done something different" with the design, but "to do what we had to
do to fit that space [they] had to go up." Describing the plans as "a nice design," he
underscored that he and his wife "love the area" and "that's kind of where [they]
wanted to be."
In addition to the "return to the neighborhood" residential aspirations of he
and his spouse, Dr. Bronwen Richards, Dr. Brian Richards further described that
the couple had two young adult children, "one in college, one ready to go to
college," and that he and his wife "we're kind of building the house for our future."
Dr. Bronwen Richards spoke next and, after affirming her husband's
account, further stated that she had lived next door to the subject Property, at 315
N.Van Buren Street for ten years, and that her husband had resided there for
thirteen years. When, she attested, they had "found the place [319 North Van
Buren Street] and had the opportunity ... yes its very small but we'd like to comply
with everything ... we're trying to figure out how ... to get back in there and enjoy
Iowa City again."
One of the Hearing participants, Mr. David Moore, who lives within 200 feet
of the property, attempted to inquire directly of the Purchasers, in follow-up to
their statements, as to whether the couple, truly, intended to live at the residence,
as their statements had implied, or whether they viewed it as a rental investment
property. The line of questioning was summarily cut-off by the City's Hearing
Convenor before any answer was provided.
There is little reason to challenge the Drs. Richards' descriptions of how
much they enjoyed, years earlier, living at 315 N. Van Buren Street, as residents of
the Northside Neighborhood. Although they did not say as much when they spoke
in support of obtaining exceptions to the Zoning Code, one can imagine that, back
then, they appreciated, when looking from the front porch of their home to the
north, the unique, charming, modest home at 319 N. Van Buren Street, a residence
appropriately-sized for the lot, the structure now tom down by the Owner to
accommodate the tall boxed building that Ors. Richards propose to build and
occupy. Or, perhaps, back then, looking across the street, southeasterly, they
to the harms that will be caused to the "character and aesthetic" of the
neighborhood.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 12
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
appreciated the efforts that Mary and I made to preserve the Victorian building at
504 E. Bloomington Street.
In any event, the Purchasers, at the Hearing, did provide personal
testimonials in support of Prestige's proposal to build a structure on their behalf,
that exceeds the Zoning Chapter's allowed set-back, side-yard requirements. Such
testimonials-describing their intent to occupy the premises personally, if it were
to be built-were perhaps aimed to blunt the predatory request, made by a
developer, in support of a building and a concept that is only too familiar to
Northside Neighborhood residents: commercial ventures aimed to increase the
numbers of, and to maximize profits of new housing projects. Commercial, profit
driven projects, when aided by exemptions to minimum zoning set-back
requirements pose special potential harms to fragile residential neighborhoods. The
importance of the precedent that the City will be setting if it grants the requested
exceptions could be profound, causing adverse ripples for years to come as this, or
other, developers point to this example as a basis for their own, further demands
for Zoning Chapter exceptions.
Whether the present intent of the Purchasers-to move to and occupy the
new structure-was fully or accurately stated by them is a question that deserves
careful consideration. Middle-age epiphanies do occur and, perhaps this couple is
experiencingjust such an event. Can such a change-of-life dream be satisfied by
purchasing one of the smallest lots in the Northside Neighborhood and occupying,
with two college-age children, a box-shaped, flat-roofed building with virtually no
green space, located immediately adjacent to an active City-owned alley? Will the
dream be realized with a proposed structure that will tower over adjoining
properties, adorned with four small bedrooms, four separate bathrooms, limited
common areas, virtually no storage space, and serviced by parking garage spaces
that will be difficult to get into and out of, and which will be separated from the
first-floor living spaces by no fewer than thirteen steps?
Perhaps. But, then again, perhaps not.
That such an epiphany might be abandoned after the proposed building is
completed, and that such a structure might be turned into a rental investment
property seems entirely possible, if not probable. If so, then balancing
neighboring residents' rights to rely on stabilities assured by clearly-stated
minimum zoning side-yard set-back requirements against the request for
exemptions from those requirements, to accommodate what amount s to a
commercial venture, must be the subject of particularly careful scrutiny.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 13
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
A cursory review of public real estate records in Scott County, Iowa, may
provide clues as to the likelihood that the Purchasers, notwithstanding how
sincerely they presently believe themselves to be committed to the prospect of
relocating themselves to the Property and residing there full-time, will cany
forward with their vision if the City were to grant Prestige the privilege of
exemptions from zoning ordinance set back requirements.
According to those real estate records, the Drs. Richards reside at 2301
Forest Reed Place, LeClaire, Iowa 52753. The adjoining lots, owned by what is
described as the "Brian J. Richards Revocable Trust," are comprised of an area of
1.61 acres (that is, 70,132 square feet) and, according to photographs on the Scott
County Assessor's website, include expansive lawns. Listed as a single-family
dwelling, the combined living area (inclusive of a finished basement) exceeds
7,900 square feet. This does not include the garage (936 square feet) or the
swimming pool (900 square feet of water surface area}-each of which, alone,
exceeds the 744 square foot footprint of the home that was demolished by the
Owner to make way for this proposed project in Iowa City's Northside
Neighborhood. The Scott County Assessor describes Dr s. Richards' home as
having fourteen rooms, including five bedrooms and seven bathrooms, assessing
the value of the property in 2020 at $1,308,020.
The Northside Neighborhood, one of the oldest residential areas in Iowa
City, has always welcomed and included successful residents and has one of the
most interesting mixes of citizens anywhere in the vicinity. "Success," over the
years, has been measured in many different ways: artists, writers, poets,
musicians, scholars, medical professionals, blue collar workers, people struggling
with the challenges of disabilities, people becoming acclimated to a new nation or
a new community-the list goes on and on.
The request to grant special zoning privileges for 319 Nor th Van Buren
Street sho uld not be granted or denied on the basis of anyone's wealth or status.
However, prospective owners who, in vouching their support of special zoning
privileges, base their request on their personal reasons for doing so, including their
professed desire to move into, with their adult children, the structure they propose
to build should not be exempt from having those reasons scrutinized and carefully
considered.
The Owner, Prestige Properties Development, LLC, has the burden of
proving zoning privileges in the form of a "Minor Modification" to allow a larger
building than otheiwise would be allowed on the property at 319 N. Van Buren
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street. Iowa City, Iowa Page 14
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
Street. The policy considerations for the City are critical. There is a legal adage in
Iowa to the effect, that a man, who, having killed his parents, cannot throw himself
on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. So, too here, a developer
should not be allowed to purchase a small lot, upon which is located a viable
modest home, to allow it to deteriorate to the extent that it must be demolished, and
then to claim that he must be allowed special zoning privileges because the high
density residential structure that he wants to build upon it is too big for the lot and
that, therefore, to be required to abide by the local zoning ordinance would be, for
him, "impractical."
Although perhaps new to the Ors. Richards, the shop-worn pattern is ea sily
recognized by those who have resided in Iowa City for any period of time,
including those citizens who have staked their claims and livelihoods on their
homes in the Northside Neighborhood. An out-of-town family sending their
children to the University of Iowa, transforms rental expenses that otherwise would
be paid to third party apartment owners (or, to the UI), into investment funds,
supporting the costs of the structure, and perhaps, too, charging rent to
roommates-persons who, oftentimes, are friends of the family's children.
The proposed structure is consistent with this model and is not an exemplar
of any genuine impracticalities attributable to the enforcement of the City's zoning
or dinance: four bedrooms tightly packed into a building three-stories high, with
parking provided. Such a housing scheme, if properly established, can meet tax
laws and result in successful investments, even when it is predicated on tearing
down existing housing stock that fulfilled residential needs for more than a
century. However, such schemes cannot be accommodated at the expense of the
public interest, which would happen if the special privileges, in the form of a
"Minor Modification," were to be granted in this instance.
The strict application of the side-yard set-back requirement for 319 N. Van
Buren Street will create neither genuine impracticalities nor unnecessary hardships
for any project properly conceived and appropriately scaled. One cannot blame, or,
at least should not be surprised, if a developer would want to maximize his own
financial return by buying a small lot and then trying to use it more intensively
than the zoning laws allow.
That this property can be utilized within the bounds of the applicable zoning
laws is proven by the very existence, for more than a century, of the residential
home that the Owner demolished before, apparently, he had an alternative use
planned. In any event, assuring the maximum rate of return for a developer in an
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 15
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
established residential neighborhood is not the primary goal of the City's Zoning
Chapter, including pr ovisions related to Minor Modification requests. That is the
driving force of this application, and that is not enough.
Here, and as described eloquently in the many comments and letters of
persons who have submitted opinions to the City, including, but not limited to,
those with property ownership interests within 200 feet of 319 N. Van Buren
Street, it is obvious that abandoning the clear set-back line requirements to
accommodate a footprint that is too big, and a building that is too tall for the real
estate parcel, will be detrimental. It will be harmful to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the
zone in which the property is located.
The Minor Modification request must be denied because it is not in
conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation that is modified. There are
solid, time-tested reasons, some of them directly related to health and safety, why
buildings should be set-back from side yard property lines and they are
incorporated into the Zoning Chapter.
C.CONCLUSION
As one of the nearby neighbors, Shawn F. Colbert, the very citizen quoted
by Mr. Ginger in his letter to the City of January 8, 2021 asks, in his email dated
January 6, 2021 to the City: "[W]hy do these zoning ordinances exist if the [C]ity
and developers aren't going to abide by them?"
Why, indeed.
Perhaps the City, by this proceeding, intends to open a new era marked by
encouraging the demolition of usable, low-income housing, altering and ignoring
the characteristics of established neighborhoods, or increasing the intensity of uses
of residential lots in such areas. If so, then granting the requested Minor
Modification would surely set a precedent under which, despite zoning restrictions
appearing in the Zoning Chapter to the contrary, persistent developers could
achieve these goals.
However, if that is not the City's intent, then the request for the Minor
Modification made by Prestige Pr operties Development, LLC, on its own behalf
and for the benefit of potential Purchasers of the lot located at 319 N. Van Buren
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street. Iowa Cit;y, Iowa Page 16
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
Street, because no genuine impracticalities would be created by a structure that
conforms with the City s zoning ordinance, should be denied in its entirety.
More importantly the City should be mindful of its violation of Iowa's
Constitution and statutes related to home-rule authority and the limited powers of
the Board of Adjustment, and of Iowa's common law and amend its Municipal
Code, accordingly so that Board members are not placed in the untenable position
of being asked to violate Iowa law.
LAREW LAW OFFICE 319 N Van Buren Street, Iowa City, Iowa Page 17
Additional Correspondence 1Additional Correspondence 1
From:James Dreier
To:Kirk Lehmann
Subject:Letter in support of appeal for 319 N. Van Buren
Date:Monday, April 12, 2021 1:49:18 PM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
DreierLetter.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Dear Mr. Lehmann, Attached is a letter supporting the appeal to the Board of
Adjustment decision to grant a waiver for a proposed building on 319 N. Van Buren
St. Please include this in the documents for the hearing and let me know if you have
any questions regarding this letter. Thank you,
James Dreier
424 N. Van Buren St.
(319) 621-6002
Additional Correspondence 2
• •✓Si�erely, ·" \ t /4 �-\ __ ,,/��A, ,-v, -+ � / l �If�.._,
,,/ I
( JameJ and LeAnne Dreier
424N. Van Buren St., (319) 621-6002
Additional Correspondence 2
April 11, 2021
Kirk Lehman Board of Adjustments City oflowa City
Dear Mr. Lehman, We are writing this letter in support of the appeal of the decision made by the Board of Adjustments to initially approve the request for "Minor Modification for 319 N. Van Buren Street" by Prestige Properties, to reduce and waive side yard setbacks required for a proposed 3-story dwelling.
We have resided at 424 N. Van Buren, Iowa City, IA since August of 1989. We are homeowners and have invested 30+ years in this northside neighborhood.
Our primary objection to the request to waive the building,codes for this project rests with Section 14-2A-4C (Building Bulk Standards) of the city code. Quoting from the letter of appeal, "These height regulations are "intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings; provide options for light, air, and privacy; and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity." The purpose of the minimum setback requirements is stated in Section 14-2A-4B: "to 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."
We agree with the appeal letter, and many of our neighbors, that the decision of the Building Official does not address the purpose of the additional minimum 2-foot setback. By not addressing how the setback reduction preserves the intent of the setback requirement, the question remains: If the setback can be waived solely to meet the desires of the property owner or the developer without a compelling reason, why does the regulation exist at all?
Certainly, waivers for reasonable and modest requests can and should be considered by the board. However, in spite of the misleading characteristic of this request as "minor," this waiver's end result is major. If regulations exist for a reason, then I would ask the board to consider this an unreasonable request.
We agree that the application of Prestige Properties for approval to reduce and waive the additional 2-foot setback required for a 3-story building at 319 N. Van Buren Street in the RNS-12 zone should have been denied .
From:Freerks, Ann M
To:Kirk Lehmann
Cc:David Moore
Subject:Letter RE: Appeal of Minor Modification for 319 N Van Buren St. to Board of Adjustment
Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:52:17 AM
Hi Kirk,
Please share my letter below with the Iowa City Board of Adjustment today. I’d like to give them
time to read it prior to the meeting on Wednesday, April 14th. Please cc me on your forward to
them.
Thank you,
Ann Freerks
Dear Board of Adjustment Members,
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 adopted by the City Council in 2005.
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 of new neighborhoods so
they create an attractive cohesive, and sustainable living environment for years to come.
When we drafted the Minor Modification section we wrote it to allow “minor” adjustments to
zoning rules so property owners would not have to go before the Board of Adjustment 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 ifthat
minor modification met the intent of the zoning rules and did not cause harm to its neighbors and
the structure 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
3-story house in a neighborhood of 1- and 2-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 grand special privileges to
some property owners at the expense of their neighbors.
Additional Correspondence 3
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, lots should be
developed at the intensity allowed by the lot area, height limits, and set back requirements. The
smallest lots should not have the largest buildings.
For many years I put a great deal of energy into making sure that the decisions that Planning and
Zoning commission made were wise and just. There are a few mistakes and I am reminded of this as
I walk or drive through 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 City Council established for approval. It should
be overturned quickly and not be allowed create a precedent, which would cause damage not just in
this neighborhood but in all Iowa City neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time,
Ann Freerks
443 South Governor Street
Iowa City
Additional Correspondence 3
April 14, 2021
Board of Adjustment Meeting
APL21-0001
END OF APPEAL CASE FILE
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC21-0002
Parcel Number: 1015277002, 1015277005,
1015277006, 1015277007, & 0225202007.
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: April 14, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Michael Apt
Gilbane Development
7 Jackson Walkway
Providence, RI 02903
mapt@gilbaneco.com
Contact Person: Michael Welch
Axiom Consultants
60 E. Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6220
mwelch@axiom-con.com
Property Owner(s): Dragonfly III LLC,
220 Lafayette Street, Suite 160
Iowa City, IA 52240
6 Corp
1469 Wetherby Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Public Space One Inc.
229 N. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Requested Action: 50% reduction of minimum parking requirement
Purpose: To allow development of multi-family housing
Location: 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street
206 & 220 Lafayette Street
2
Location Map:
Size: 1.93 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Mixed Use; Riverfront Crossings - Central
Crossings (RFC-CX)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; Riverfront Crossings - Central
Crossings (RFC-CX)
East: Mixed Use; Community Commercial (CC-2)
South: Commercial & Institutional; Intensive
Commercial (CI-1)
West: Mixed Use; Institutional Public (P-2),
Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings
(RFC-CX), Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-5A-4F-6: Parking Reduction for Other Unique
Circumstances
File Date: March 12, 2021
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Gilbane Development, has requested a special exception to reduce the minimum
number of required parking spaces for the subject properties at 700, 710, 720, and 730 S. Dubuque
Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street. The purpose is to allow the redevelopment of the site into a
6-story, multi-family building with 250 units (47 studios/one-bedroom, 155 two-bedroom, and 48
three-bedroom apartments).
The property was rezoned from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
zone to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone on February 2, 2021 (Ordinance
No. 21-4847), subject to the following conditions:
1.Owner shall cause that part of Ralston Creek adjacent to the above-described property,
between the parcel's west boundary line and five feet east of the toe of the stream bank, to
be Improved as follows:
a.Removal of invasive trees;
3
b.Stream bank stabilization, including necessary grading and addition of rip-rap;
c.Tree planting;
d.Installation of a minimum 6-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the top of the stream bank;
e.Installation of pedestrian-scale lighting;
f.Prior to issuance of a building permit for any portion of the above-described property,
Owner shall;
i.Enter into a temporary construction easement agreement with the City of Iowa
City, owner of the adjacent land upon with the above-described improvements are
to be constructed. Said easement agreement shall be in a form approved by the
City Attorney's Office;
ii.Obtain approval from the City Engineer of the streambank restoration and sidewalk
construction plans; and
iii.Obtain approval from the City Forester of the tree planting plan.
iv.The above-described work shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the above-described property, which shall include a temporary
certificate of occupancy.
2.Prior to issuance of building permits, Owner shall dedicate, at no cost to the City, a sanitary
sewer easement, in a location to be determined by the City Engineer, and in a form of
agreement acceptable to the City Attorney's Office.
Gilbane Development also applied for VAC20-0003, a request to vacate the alley that separates
the S. Dubuque Street properties from 220 Lafayette Street. The Planning & Zoning Commission
will hear that case when a final price for conveyance is agreed upon between Gilbane Development
and the City of Iowa City.
Minimum parking standards are intended to provide off-street parking which accommodates most
of the demand for parking generated by the use, particularly where sufficient on-street parking is
not available. It also seeks to prevent parking for nonresidential uses from encroaching into adjacent
residential neighborhoods. The Central Crossings Subdistrict is intended for moderate intensity
mixed use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian friendly public streets and
streetscapes, which promotes the goals of the Riverfront Crossings code to promote economically
vital, mixed use, pedestrian friendly districts. Properties in the Central Crossings subdistrict are
typically eligible to pay a fee in lieu of on-site parking if they are north of the Iowa Interstate rail line.
However, the rail line abuts the subject properties to the north, meaning they do not qualify.
The proposed project requires 387 parking spaces as shown in the provided application materials
(Attachment 3). However, a parking reduction of up to 50 percent may be requested where it can
be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of spaces
required is excessive. A 50 percent parking reduction would require 193 parking spaces to be
provided onsite.
The building footprint is proposed to contain a level and a half of parking with approximately 203
parking stalls. The site plan shows access to below-grade parking on the south side of the
building where the alley vacation is expected. This would allow vehicles to exit directly onto
Lafayette Street which leads west towards S. Dubuque Street. Approval of the exception
would allow the redevelopment to occur as currently proposed.
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
4
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-5A-4F-6, pertaining to parking reductions for unique circumstances
requiring a special exception, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion
below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each
criterion may be found on the attached application materials. Staff comments regarding each
criterion are set below.
Specific Standards: 14-5A-4-F: Parking Reductions for Other Unique Circumstances:
1.Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such
that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce
the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or
protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the Board of Adjustment may
grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking
spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as
a local historic landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed
as key or contributing structures in a Historic District or Conservation District
Overlay Zone).
FINDINGS:
•The applicant has requested the exception on the basis that the specific use has
unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is
excessive, which would allow a reduction of up to 50 percent of the required minimum
number of parking spaces.
•The property is purpose-built housing for University of Iowa students and includes
features specific to that use, such as individual leases, furnished units, and on-site
amenities like study lounges. Students exhibit lower demand for on-site parking and
are more likely to utilize modes of transportation such as transit, walking, and biking.
•2019 5-Year American Community Survey data (table B08301) suggests residents in
downtown Iowa City use cars less due to proximity to the University, employment, and
other services. For typical commutes in Census Tracts near downtown (specifically
16, 17, and 21 as shown in Attachment 3), around 52% drive alone to work, 7%
carpool, 34% walk or bike, 4% use public transportation, and the remainder use other
modes of transportation or work from home. Tract 21, the closest to downtown, has
the lowest levels of car usage with only 27% driving alone to work.
•The applicant proposes approximately 0.81 underground parking spaces per dwelling
unit, which equals approximately 0.41 spaces per bed.
•The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) suggest an average parking demand
rate of 0.90 vehicles per unit or 0.48 per bed for a Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Dense Multi-
Use Urban use, though it is not specific to student housing.
•The RISE at Riverfront Crossings, a student housing project on E. Court Street,
provides parking at a rate of 0.60 spaces per unit or 0.34 per bed. Staff is not aware
of any complaints regarding spillover parking from the RISE.
•Properties adjacent to the subject property vary more widely from 0.55 (628 S.
Dubuque Street) to 1.25 (225 E. Prentiss Street) parking spaces per dwelling unit.
5
General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
• Parking ratios are similar to other projects that are located downtown and are
appropriate as determined by Census data about means of transportation to work.
• Parking ratios are below suggested ratios by the ITE, but the targeted market of
students is more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than is anticipated
by the ITE.
• Spillover parking is not anticipated to impact on-street parking in neighboring
residential areas because most nearby streets either meter or do not allow on-street
parking.
• The Harrison Street public parking ramp totaling 550 spaces is within a 3-minute walk
of the proposed building for downtown visitors or commuters, and the site plan shows
new public parking spaces on S. Dubuque Street as part of the project. Parking permits
in public ramps are not typically available to downtown residents.
• Some parking demand may be satisfied by the University’s remote parking lots if
regular travel is not conducted by car and students are the primary occupants.
• Tenants must consider reduced on-site parking in their decision-making, so it is likely
the proposed project will attract tenants who do not require as much on-site parking.
• Overall, the parking reduction 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:
• Many properties in the immediate vicinity, especially those owned by the University
and County, have more than adequate parking and will not be negatively impacted.
• Nearby residential properties vary in their parking supply but typically cater to the same
market as the proposed project. There are no single-family residential uses in the
immediate vicinity.
• The Harrison Street Parking Ramp provides adequate off-street parking for customers
and visitors.
• The proposed project will provide new on-street parking.
• The proposed project will increase nearby pedestrian traffic, which will likely improve
the commercial viability of nearby businesses.
• Improvements to Ralston Creek will increase the attractiveness of the area for
properties to the east.
• The parking reduction will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not impair nearby property values.
6
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located.
FINDINGS:
• The area is already largely developed, and recent nearby redevelopment projects
have only increased the demand for additional improvements in Riverfront Crossings.
• The proposed development may cause temporary closures of streets as part of
construction but will otherwise not impact development or improvement of surrounding
properties in the long-term.
• The proposed parking reduction will not impede normal development.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• The existing streets provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access. Pedestrian
access is supplemented with amenities along Ralston Creek.
• Staff will ensure adequate utilities, drainage, and other necessary facilities are being
provided through the site plan review and building permitting processes, which will
include replacement of a sanitary sewer line.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• The parking level entrance is located at grade on Lafayette Street where the alley will
need to be vacated as part of the project. The approval of the vacation by City Council
is recommended as a condition of the requested parking reduction.
• Vehicular access to the public street network is provided to the west with Ralston
Creek blocking access to the east. Lafayette Street intersects S. Dubuque Street at
an intersection with a stop sign.
• Several vehicular access points on S. Dubuque Street and one on Lafayette Street will
be eliminated as part of the project.
• New public parking will be constructed in the S. Dubuque Street right of way. Staff has
recommended that these spaces be metered to help support short-term on-street
parking needs in a mixed use area.
• Pedestrian access is proposed along all public streets and along Ralston Creek.
• Adequate measures are being taken to minimize traffic congestion.
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:
• As the project progresses, staff will ensure that all applicable standards and
regulations are met through the design review, site plan review and building permitting
processes.
• Policies for administrative height bonuses shall be followed as part of this project.
7
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Mixed Use on the Future Land Use
map and includes goals to “identify and support infill development and redevelopment
opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place ” and to
“encourage pedestrian-oriented development…that make it safe convenient, and
comfortable to walk.”
• The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan includes objectives for the
Central Crossings subdistrict such as “promote new housing options” and “restore and
enhance conditions along Ralston Creek”. The development program for the area
includes “Multiple housing option typologies”.
• The Master Plan highlights this block for residential redevelopment.
• Reducing parking to promote redevelopment, new housing options, and Ralston Creek
restoration is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
S CLINTON STS DUBUQUE STLAFAYETTE ST SGILBERTSTMAIDENLN
WRIGHT ST
EXC21-0002700, 710, 720, 720, 730 S. Dubuque St.206, & 220 Lafayette St.µ
0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, for a special exception to reduce the minimum required parking for 1.93 acres of property located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque St. and 206 & 220 Lafayette St.
S CLINTON STS DUBUQUE STLAFAYETTE ST SGILBERTSTMAIDENLN
WRIGHT ST
P2
PRM
P1
RM44
RS8
CC2
CI1
RFC-CX
EXC21-0002700, 710, 720, 720, 730 S. Dubuque St.206, & 220 Lafayette St.µ
0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development for a special exception allowing a 50% parking reduction for 1.93 acres of property located at 700, 710,720, 730 S. Dubuque St. & 206, and 220 Lafayette St.
STSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W WFDC
S-02EX SAN 1718-1EX S-807-12S-01EX S-2-6EX #2-501020SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOG ENGINEER:
REV DATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
PROJECT NAME:
CLIENT NAME:
WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Mar 09, 2021 - 1:58pm S:\PROJECTS\190173\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\CDs\190173 - C2s.dwgPROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00GILBANE DEVELOPMENT CO.
SITE PLAN S. DUBUQUE STREET DEVELOPMENT
700 S. DUBUQUE STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
PRELIMINARY - DESIGN REVIEW
190173 WELCH
S. DUBUQUE STREET
LAFAYETTE STREET EXISTING20' STORM SEWEREASEMENTPROPOSED 8'PUBLIC TRAIL30' STREAMBUFFER5' STREAMBUFFER SETBACKPROPOSED BUILDINGPARKING LEVEL FFE = 647.001ST LEVEL FFE = 660.002ND LEVEL FFE = 673.00LAFAYETTE STREETCRANDIC RAILROADIOWA INTERSTATE RAILROADRALSTON C
R
E
E
K PROPERTYBOUNDARYPROPERTYBOUNDARYPARKINGENTRANCE@ LOWER LEVELENTRANCE@ 1ST LEVEL11.69'25.03'20.14'15.87'10.26'14.06'12.32'10.99'80' ROW80' ROW02-24-2021
03-02-2021
REVISED SEWER LAYOUT
REVISED SEWER LAYOUT5'23'5'18'9'55810'19.03'11.69'35.4'29'ENTRANCE@ 2ND LEVELSTAIRS EXISTBETWEENLOWER LEVEL& 1ST LEVELSTAIRS EXITBETWEENLOWER LEVEL& 1ST LEVEL
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
60 East Court Street #3, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
1901 16th Ave. SW #3, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 | 319.519.6220
GILBANE DEVELOPMENT – S. DUBUQUE STREET
Special Exception – Parking Reduction
April 5, 2021
On behalf of Gilbane Development, Axiom Consultants and Gibson Traffic Consultants are requesting a
parking reduction of up to 50% of the code required parking for the S. Dubuque Street Development project
(located at 700, 710, 720, and 730 S Dubuque Street and 206 and 220 Lafayette Street). A parking
reduction of up to 50% may be granted by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) as a Special Exception per code
section14-5A-4(F)(6). The BOA may approve this reduction where there are other unique circumstances or
where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics where the number of spaces
required is excessive. The following sections will provide details on the project, the parking provided within
the project, the parking demand, and the justification for the requested parking reduction.
INTRODUCTION
The property is located at the northeast corner of S. Dubuque Street and Lafayette Stree t. The property is
bordered on the north by the Iowa Interstate Railroad and on the east by Ralston Creek. Gilbane
Development is proposing to redevelop the properties listed above into a mid-rise, multi-dwelling building
with 250 units (47 studios/one-bedroom, 155 two-bedroom units, and 48 three-bedroom units) with a total of
501 beds. The residents of the building will primarily be students attending the University of Iowa. The
building will be 6-stories with a level and a half of below-grade parking. There will be approximately 203
parking stalls provided within the building footprint. There will also be public parking stalls along S. Dubuque
Street.
The surrounding properties are a mix of multi-dwelling buildings, Johnson County facilities (county
administrative building, parking structure and ambulance garage), and commercial properties. There are no
single-family properties in the vicinity of this project. The Harrison Street parking structure is located one
block to the north.
The property is four blocks from campus and the edge of downtown Iowa City. Residents can be downtown
or at the center of campus in less than 15 -minutes if walking or less than 5-minutes if biking. The Campus
Recreation and Wellness Center is a 10-minute walk. The Main Library is also less than a 15-minute walk.
These travel times are comparable to those for students living in Slater, Rienow or Currier Resident Halls.
Refer to Appendix A, figures 1-6.
CODE REQUIRED PARKING
The minimum parking supply required per Iowa City Zoning Code (ICZC) 14 -5A-4(B) Table 5A-3 is calculated
below:
Efficiency and 1 bedroom 0.75 space per dwelling unit (47 units) = 35 spaces*
2 bedrooms 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (155 units) = 232 spaces*
3 bedrooms 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit (48 units) = 120 spaces
Total 387 spaces
* Per code, when there is a fractional parking space, the number of spaces will be the closest whole number with a half
space rounded down.
P a g e | 2
PARKING DEMAND
Parking demand can be calculated using national averages such as those provided in Parking Generation,
5th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and by investigating parking rates for
comparable properties in Iowa City.
Parking generation calculations for residential use according to ITE’s Parking Generation, 5th Edition suggest
a rate of 0.90 vehicles per unit for average parking demand rate identified for ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 221,
Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Dense Multi-Use Urban (no nearby rail transit). Refer to Appendix C. The average
parking demand in ITE is the average of all the maximum data points within the study period and should be
viewed as the average of maximums. Further, the ITE data represents market rate apartments and are not
specifically designated for student parking. Using the ITE parking rate, 225 parking spaces would be required
for the 250 units provided.
Looking at similar scale student-buildings with onsite parking in Iowa City, RISE at Riverfront Crossings has
a total of 332 units, 585 beds, and 200 parking spaces for a parking supply rate of 0.60 spaces/unit or 0.34
spaces per bed. RISE at Riverfront Crossings development charges $150 per parking space and does not
limit the number of spaces per unit. If the student parking supply rate on a per unit basis for RISE was utilized
for Gilbane Iowa City the 250 units would have a supply of 150 parking spaces. Using RISE’s per bed parking
rate, Gilbane Iowa City would need 170 stalls.
Table 1 and Table 2 show the parking that would be required for the Gilbane project using the rates identified
above from ITE manual and the RISE project. Parking requirements are shown both for per unit and per bed
scenarios. The required number of spaces is achieved by multiplying the number of units (2 50) or number
of beds (501) in the Gilbane project by the associated rate from the sources listed above.
Table 1: Comparable Parking Rates – Per Unit
Source Parking
Rate
Required
Spaces
ITE Parking Generation, 5th Ed. 0.90 / unit 225
RISE at Riverfront Crossings 0.60 / unit 147
Table 2: Comparable Parking Rates - Per Bed
Source Parking
Rate
Required
Spaces
ITE Parking Generation, 5th Ed. 0.48 / bed 240
RISE at Riverfront Crossings 0.34 / bed 170
P a g e | 3
TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED TRIPS
US Census data can be used to understand transportation tendencies of people in and around the project
area. This can help us understand and predict the behaviors of the future residents of the project. The mode
split data below is based on data contained on the United States Census Bureau webs ite. There will be a
total of 501 bedrooms (47 studios/one-bedroom, 155 two-bedroom units, and 48 three-bedroom units) in the
Gilbane Iowa City development. An average of 1 resident was assumed per studio/one -bedroom and 2
residents per two-bedroom units, and 2.5 residents per three-bedroom unit. This equates to a full occupancy
population of 477 residents. Data from census tract 21, which is just north of the development (north of Iowa
Interstate rail line) and without the single-family residential nature of census tracts 16 and 21, was used to
look at various modes of transportation. From this information, it is predicted that of the development’s
residents, 8% will use public transportation (38 residents), 46% will walk (219 residents), 10% will work from
home (48 residents) and 5% will use bicycles (23 residents). Refer to Appendix D. Meaning that 149 residents
will be relying on a vehicle for their daily activities.
There are several bus lines with transit stops within 6 minutes walking time (0.3 mile s) of the development.
They include the South Campus Shuttle by CAMBUS, Iowa City Transit (ICT) Cross Park, ICT Broadway,
ICT Lakeside, ICT Mall, and ICT Free Shuttle South. Refer to Appendix B. The CAMBUS is free while the
ICT University of Iowa student U-Pass (12 months) is $168 if you do not have a University parking permit.
Iowa City Code (14-5A-4F-8) allows up to 10% of the parking requirement to be scooter and motorcycle
parking. This code allows 6 scooter spaces in place of 2 vehicle spaces. Scooters have become a common
form of transportation for University of Iowa students.
The University of Iowa provides student parking permits for the Hawkeye Storage Permit (Lot 39). This
provides a location for students to store their vehicle offsite and this parking lot is served by CAMBUS. This
storage permit and the availability of public transit and the proximity of the development to downtown and
campus reduces the need for students to have a car on premise.
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES
The project type coupled with the project location and site topography creates a unique circumstance. The
project is Purpose-Built Student Housing with amenities tailored to students attending The University of
Iowa, including individual leases, fully furnished units, onsite fitness center, and study lounges. The strong
focus on students results in a different parking demand than the parking demand for general population,
market-rate apartments. National data available from the ITE indicates average parking rates of 0.90/unit or
0.48/bed. The ITE data does not include a sub -set of parking data for student housing. It is necessary to
analyze local projects of a similar scale to the proposed development to understand the unique circumstance
created by purpose-built student housing. The most comparable property in Iowa City to this development
is The RISE. Analysis of the parking demand at The RISE demonstrates that the parking rate at The RISE
is 0.60/unit or 0.34/bed. Clearly, student apartments have a lower parking demand than market -rate
apartments serving a wider population. The lower parking demand for student housing can be attributed to
several factors. First, the shortage of parking on campus means students walk to campus or use CAMBUS
to circulate around campus. Secondly, the project’s proximity to campus and downtown Iowa City means
that many of the students do not bring a car to campus. If they do, they will store their vehicles at the Hawkeye
Storage Lot since they do not use their vehicles frequently. Additionally, students are very willing and often
prefer to use other modes of transit including public transit, walking, and biking thereby not requiring the use
of a personal vehicle.
P a g e | 4
In addition to the specific use, the projects’ location creates another unique circumstance. The project is
bounded on the north by the Iowa Interstate Railroad and on the east by Ralston Creek. S. Dubuque Street
climbs as you move north along the site. This change in elevation means the entrance to the parking structure
is at grade on Lafayette Street and 20 feet below grade at the northwest corner of the site. The location of
the railroad and the associated embankment limit the depth of excavation that can occur on the north side of
the site. The groundwater levels associated with Ralston Creek along the east property line also limit the
depth of excavation and construction that is practical. Pushing the parking level further below grade to gain
an additional level of onsite parking would result in a parking level that is below the bottom of Ralston Creek.
Construction of this type would result in extensive de-watering measures both during construction and for the
life of the building. The energy expenditure for this dewatering equipment would not be in line with Iowa
City’s sustainability goals.
Building another parking level above grade presents challenges. The city code requires liner units on parking
structures that face S. Dubuque Street and Ralston Creek. This means that an additional level of above
grade parking would be less efficient than the level and a half already provided. This inefficiency would me an
that in order to achieve the total amount of parking required at least one more level of parking if not two would
be required. Adding additional parking levels would result in the building being 7 or 8 stories rather than the
6 stories currently proposed. A 7 or 8-story building is not envisioned by the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan in this area. This additional height would be out of scale with the properties to the south that are currently
two-story structures (Johnson County Parking Garage and Johnson County Ambulance Garage). Likewise,
the maximum height for the properties on the east side of Ralston Creek is only 5 stories by code.
SUMMARY
The project proposes to provide onsite parking for 81% of the units within the building (Table 3). Parking at
this rate exceeds that of The Rise (60%), the only other purpose-built, student housing project of a similar
scale in the Iowa City area.
Table 3: Proposed Parking Rate
Provided
Spaces
Number
of Units
Parking
Rate
203 250 0.81
Census data demonstrates a high use of transportation methods other than personal vehicles in the Iowa
City area. These modes include bicycles, walking, ride-share services, and public transit. Most of the
residents are anticipated to be University of Iowa students. Walking and bicycle transportation times from
this development to downtown and other locations on campus are similar or less than those of many of the
resident halls.
The reduced amount of parking can have a beneficial impact on the community. Reduced onsite parking
will encourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use for the residents of the building. This is in
line with the goals of the Iowa City Climate Action Plan.
There are no single-family properties in the immediate vicinity that would be impacted by spillover parking
from guests or residents of the proposed building. The redevelopment of these properties will make it
P a g e | 5
possible to add additional public parking on the east side of S. Dubuque Street. Currently the re is not
parking in this location because of conflicts with driveways.
The development, as proposed, fits with the surrounding development patterns and existing uses. This
development is a continuation of the redevelopment patterns envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The infrastructure for this project is already in place. The existing
network of streets and sidewalks will adequately support the development. The public transportation
system will benefit from potential ridership and increased demand. The parking structure entrance is
located on a secondary street directly north of the alley to the south which eliminates potential conflicts with
other traffic on Lafayette Street.
Apart from the parking reduction request, the project conforms with all other regulations and standards of
the Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings District.
The code required parking supply is 387 spaces and the proposed design provides 203 parking spaces
within the below-grade parking structure. This is 52% of the required parking (a reduction of 48%).
Therefore, we would like the Board of Adjustment to consider our request for a parking reduction for our
proposed project as a special exception per code section 14-5A-4(F)(6)
APPENDIX A
Figure 1: Walking travel distance from 700 S. Dubuque St. to Iowa Ave and Clinton St.
Figure 2: Walking travel distance from Slater Hall to Iowa Ave and Clinton St.
A-1
Figure 3: Walking travel distance from 700 S. Dubuque St. to Voxman Music Building
Figure 4: Walking travel distance from Slater Hall to Voxman Music Building
A-2
Figure 5: Walking travel distance from 700 S. Dubuque St. to Campus Recreation and Wellness Center
Figure 6: Walking travel distance from Slater Hall to Campus Recreation and Wellness Center
A-3
0 40 80
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Mar 12, 2021 - 9:54am S:\PROJECTS\190173\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Base\190173 - ParkingStudyExhibit.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 GILBANEPARKING STUDY EXHIBITTRANSIT ROUTESRIVERFRONT CROSSINGS700 S. DUBUQUE STREETIOWA CITY, IA190173WELCHLEGEND
CAMBUS - SOUTH CAMPUS SHUTTLE
IOWA CITY TRANSIT - CROSS PARK
IOWA CITY TRANSIT - LAKESIDE
IOWA CITY TRANSIT - FREE SHUTTLE SOUTH/ MALL
IOWA CITY TRANSIT - BROADWAY
BUS STOP
PROJECT LOCATION
E PRENTISS STREET
S DUBUQUE STREETS CLINTON STREETS CAPITOL STREETBOWERY STREET
E BENTON STREET S GILBERT STREETIOWA STATE
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
PROJECT
AREA
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX DD-1
D-2
D-3
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
60 East Court Street #3, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
1901 16th Ave. SW #3, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 | 319.519.6220
GILBANE DEVELOPMENT – S. DUBUQUE STREET
Special Exception – Parking Reduction
GENERAL CRITERIA (14-4B-3A):
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare.
The request for a reduction of the amount of on-site parking provided will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare of community. The reduced parking on-site will reduce
the amount of vehicular traffic that would otherwise be present around the site. The reduction will also
encourage alternate forms of mobility including walking, biking, and use of existing public transportation
services.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
The request for reduced parking will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity and will not diminish or impair property values. The adjacent properties to the west and
north are commercial buildings or multi-dwelling buildings. The University of Iowa occupies the majority of
the block west of the project with a building and parking lot. The properties to the south are operated by
Johnson County (Ambulance Facility and Parking Structure). There are no single-family properties in the
vicinity of the project.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
The request for a parking reduction will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement on
the surrounding properties. The development is consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and is
a continuation of redevelopment that has already occurred in the vicinity of this project.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided.
The infrastructure for this project already exists. The existing street and sidewalk network can support this
proposed development. The city-owned utilities are adequately sized to service this building. Further, the
development will replace a sanitary sewer that is more than 100-years old. The public transit system will
potentially benefit from increases in ridership and demand from the residents of this building.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic
congestion on public streets.
The proposed project will eliminate multiple driveways along the east side of S. Dubuque Street between the
Iowa Interstate Railroad and Lafayette Street. The elimination of these driveways will make it possible to add
on-street parking to this portion of S. Dubuque Street. The project will eliminate one driveway on Lafayette
Page | 2
Street and replace another with the entrance to the below-grade parking structure. These changes will all
result in a more orderly ingress and egress for vehicles using the site.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific
proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located.
Other than the request for the parking reduction, the project conforms with all other regulations and
standards of the Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings District.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended.
Yes, the proposed exception for parking reduction is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the city, as
amended.
March 23, 2021
RE: Special Exception for
700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque St. and
206 & 220 Lafayette St.
Dear Property Owner:
The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an application submitted by Axiom
Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting a special exception to reduce
the minimum parking requirements for the properties located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S.
Dubuque St. and 206 & 220 Lafayette St. (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 electronic public meeting
tentatively scheduled for April 14, 2021 at 5:15 p.m. Because the meeting is subject to
change, check the City of Iowa City’s website, www.icgov.org/BOA, the week of the
meeting to confirm the meeting agenda.
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 kirk-lehmann@iowa-city.org 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
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.icgov.org/BOA the Monday before the
meeting. Providing comment in person is not an option.
What is the Board of Adjustment?
The Board of Adjustment is panel made
up of Iowa City citizens appointed by
the City Council. The board reviews and
grants special exceptions and variances
and also considers appeals when there
is a disagreement about an
administrative zoning decision made by
the City. Members of the board act like
judges, making decisions about
individual properties and uses that may
have difficulty meeting a specific
zoning regulation or to resolve disputes
about administrative zoning decisions.
The actions and decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are binding upon all
parties unless overturned upon appeal
to District Court.
What is a special exception?
There are two types of special
exceptions.
1. Within the zoning code a number
of land uses are set apart as special
exceptions that may be permitted
in certain zones. Rather than
permitting these uses outright,
each is reviewed on a case-by-case
basis to ensure that they do not
negatively affect surrounding
properties. For example, daycare
centers are permitted in residential
zones by special exception. The
same is true of churches and private
schools. All may be appropriate
uses in residential zones, if certain
criteria such as parking, screening,
and other requirements are met.
2. Adjustments to specific zoning
requirements in cases where there
are unique circumstances. Again,
the opportunity to adjust these
requirements and the criteria for
allowing such adjustments are
described in the Zoning Code. For
example, a homeowner may apply
for a reduction in a building setback
in order to accommodate an
addition or other improvement to
their property.
The Zoning Code lists explicitly each
use and standard for which a special
exception may be considered. In other
words, you can’t request a special
exception for everything—only those
things called out as special exceptions
in the Code. The Code also provides
criteria specific to each request.
Applicants must provide evidence that
they satisfy each of these criteria, and
the Board must consider these criteria
when making a determination as to
whether to grant a special exception.
What is a variance?
A variance grants a legal right to an
owner to develop property in a manner
that deviates from a specific provision
of the Zoning Code and for which a
special exception is not expressly
allowed. In seeking relief from the
restrictions in the Zoning Code, the
property owner applying for the
variance must show that the strict
application of the Zoning Code would
cause and unnecessary hardship such
that the property in question is
unusable or that a literal interpretation
of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the zoning
district. In addition the circumstances
that create this hardship must be
unique to the property in question and
must not be of the property owner’s
own making.
What is an appeal?
The Board considers and rules on
appeals from any citizen who believes
there is an error in any decision,
determination, or interpretation made
by the City or its designee in the
administration of the Zoning Code. As
with their other decisions, the Board’s
ruling is binding on all parties unless
overturned on appeal to the District
Court.
How does the review process
work?
An application requesting a special
exception, variance, or an appeal is a
request. The Board makes a decision on
whether to grant a specific request only
after City staff have provided a review
of an application and the public has had
an opportunity to make its concerns
known. The Board not only has the right
to approve or deny requests, but may
also choose to approve request subject
to certain conditions.
In making decisions, the Board may only
consider comments and evidence
relevant to the specific standards
provided in the code. City Development
Staff provide reports to the Board for
each application on the agenda. The
Staff Report provides background
information on the application, informs
the Board of all the criteria in the Code
that a particular application must
satisfy, and interprets whether and
how an application has satisfied these
criteria.
How can I participate in the
process?
Because most applications will be
reviewed and decided upon at a single
public hearing, it is important for
interested parties to respond in a
timely and informed manner. Those
who wish to speak for or against an
application are given an opportunity to
be heard by the Board at the hearing,
but may also submit written comments
prior to the meeting.
Written comments must be delivered to
the Department of Neighborhood &
Development Services at City Hall no
later than 5 days before the hearing in
order to be included with the Staff
Report. All correspondence submitted
after that time will be delivered to the
Board at the time of the hearing.
The Board considers the application,
the recommendation of staff (in the
staff report) and any additional
information, correspondence, or
testimony provided at the hearing.
Board of Adjustment hearings are
usually held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J.
Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find
more information at the following
website: www.icgov.org/boa.
The Staff Report can be very useful to
anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA
process or with the Zoning Code and
will provide an understanding of the
criteria that the Board must consider in
rendering its decision. Staff Reports
may be obtained from the Department
of Neighborhood & Development
Services. E-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org to request a copy of a report.
If you have questions about an
application or if you simply want more
information about issues related to the
Board of Adjustment, please feel free
to contact Kirk Lehmann at 319-356-
5230 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
To submit comments to the Board of
Adjustment write to the Board of
Adjustment c/o the Department of
Neighborhood & Development Services,
410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA
52240 or e-mail kirk-lehmann@iowa-
city.org.
Board of Adjustment: Frequently Asked Questions
S CLINTON STS DUBUQUE STLAFAYETTE ST SGILBERTSTMAIDENLN
WRIGHT ST
EXC21-0002700, 710, 720, 720, 730 S. Dubuque St.206, & 220 Lafayette St.µ
0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, for a special exception to reduce the minimum required parking for 1.93 acres of property located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque St. and 206 & 220 Lafayette St.
Parcel Number Property Address City (mail) Zip Code Deed Holder1 Deed Holder2 Deed Holder3 Mailing Name Mailing Address2 Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code1015282003 218 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY52240 FISHER, DOUGDOUGLAS L FISHER 218 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015278005 725 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 TOM AND AMY LLCTOM AND AMY LLC 122 LAFAYETTE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015278006 122 LAFAYETTE ST IOWA CITY52240 TOM AND AMY LLCTOM AND AMY LLC 122 LAFAYETTE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015284001 816 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 STEVE, VERNON STEVE, ROXANNE VERNON STEVE 2 WOODLAND DR NE IOWA CITY, IA522401015283001 CITY OF IOWA CITYCITY OF IOWA CITY410 E WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA52240‐18261015282002 228 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY52240 FISHER, DOUGLAS LDOUGLAS L FISHER 218 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015277006 710 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 6 CORP6 CORP 1469 WETHERBY DR IOWA CITY, IA522401015212003 615 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 JLB ADVENTURES LLCJLB ADVENTURES LLC 615 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221037 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 101 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015212004 619 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 ICBUR LLCICBUR LLC 201 BLACK SPRINGS CIR IOWA CITY, IA522461015211003 628 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 DEL RAY RIDGE, LPDEL RAY RIDGE LP 322 E 2ND ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015212002 613 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 IC INVESTORS INCIC INVESTORS INC PO BOX 1606 IOWA CITY, IA52244‐16061015284004 320 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY52240 STEVE, KATHLEEN AKATHLEEN A STEVE 3158 HATCH LN THE VILLAGES, FL 321621015281014 855 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 JOHNSON COUNTY IOWAJOHNSON COUNTY IOWA 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 101 IOWA CITY, IA522401015210001 315 E PRENTISS ST IOWA CITY52240 BOYD INVESTMENT COMPANY LC BOYD INVESTMENT COMPANY LC PO BOX 1516 IOWA CITY, IA52244‐15161015281015 CITY OF IOWA CITYCITY OF IOWA CITY410 E WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA52240‐18261015278004 STATE OF IOWA 4 JESSUP HALL IOWA CITY, IA522421015155001 702 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 KENNEDY PLAZA INCKENNEDY PLAZA INC 711 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015283002 817 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 SEHL, GEORGE SGEORGE S SEHL 805 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015283003 805 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 SEHL, GEORGE SGEORGE S SEHL 805 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015276002 723 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 NIDEY, DANIEL R NIDEY, DOREEN MONITTO 723 LLC 723 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015276001 711 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 HODGE APARTMENTS LCHODGE APARTMENTS LC 711 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015277007 700 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 6 CORP6 CORP 1469 WETHERBY DR IOWA CITY, IA522401015277002 220 LAFAYETTE ST IOWA CITY52240 DRAGONFLY PROPERTIES III LLCDRAGONFLY III LLC 220 LAFAYETTE ST STE 160 IOWA CITY, IA522401015277008 730 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 PUBLIC SPACE ONE, INCPUBLIC SPACE ONE INC 229 N GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IA522451015277005 720 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 DRAGONFLY III LLCDRAGONFLY III LLC 220 LAFAYETTE ST STE 160 IOWA CITY, IA522401015210003 625 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 BOYD INVESTMENT COMPANY L C BOYD INVESTMENT COMPANY LC PO BOX 1516 IOWA CITY, IA52244‐15161015212007 109 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY52240 SANDERSON, DALE E SIGAFOOSE, JAY W SIGAFOOSE, MELANIE M JAY W & MELANIE M SIGAFOOSE 2518 PRINCETON RD IOWA CITY, IA522451015282001 CITY OF IOWA CITYCITY OF IOWA CITY410 E WASHINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA52240‐18261015276006 755 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY52240 CHAMBERLAIN, MICHAEL JMICHAEL J CHAMBERLAIN 4272 DOGWOOD TRL NE IOWA CITY, IA522401015282016 206 E BENTON ST IOWA CITY52240 BFLS PROPERTIES LLCBFLS PROPERTIES LLC 5630 GABLE AVE SW KALONA, IA 522471015282015 808 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY52240 JOHNSON COUNTY IOWAJOHNSON COUNTY IOWA 913 S DUBUQUE ST STE 101 IOWA CITY, IA522401015221001 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 101 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221002 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 102 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221003 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 103 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221004 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 104 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221005 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 105 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221006 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 106 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221007 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 107 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221008 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 108 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221009 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 109 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221010 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 201 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221011 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 202 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221012 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 203 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221013 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 204 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221014 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 205 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221015 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 206 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221016 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 207 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221017 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 208 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221018 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 209 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221019 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 301 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221020 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 302 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221021 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 303 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221022 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 304 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221023 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 305 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221024 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 306 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221025 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 307 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221026 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 308 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221027 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 309 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221028 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 401 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221029 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 402 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221030 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 403 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221031 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 404 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221032 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 405 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221033 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 406 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA52240BOARD OF REGENTS STATE OF IOWA FOR THE USE & BENEFIT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
1015221034 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 407 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221035 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 408 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221036 602 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 409 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221038 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 102 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221039 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 103 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221040 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 104 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221041 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 105 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221042 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 106 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221043 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 201 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221044 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 202 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221045 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 203 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221046 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 204 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221047 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 205 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221048 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 206 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221049 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 301 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221050 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 302 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221051 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 303 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221052 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 304 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221053 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 305 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221054 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 306 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221055 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 307 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221056 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 308 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221057 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 401 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221058 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 402 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221059 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 403 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221060 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 404 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221061 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 405 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221062 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 406 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221063 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 407 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221064 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 408 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221065 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 501 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221066 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 502 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221067 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 503 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221068 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 504 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221069 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 505 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221070 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 506 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221071 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 507 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015221072 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 508 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015291001 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 101 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291002 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 104 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291003 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 106 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291004 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 107 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291005 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 108 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291006 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 109 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291007 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 112 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291008 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 113 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291009 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 114 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291010 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 116 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291011 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 118 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291012 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 120 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291013 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 121 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291014 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 201 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291015 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 202 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291016 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 204 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291017 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 206 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291018 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 207 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291019 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 208 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291020 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 209 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291021 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 211 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291022 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 212 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291023 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 213 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291024 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 214 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291025 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 216 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291026 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 218 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291027 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 220 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291028 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 221 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 53711
1015291029 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 301 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291030 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 302 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291031 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 304 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291032 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 306 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291033 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 307 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291034 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 308 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291035 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 309 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291036 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 311 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291037 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 312 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291038 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 313 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291039 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 314 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291040 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 316 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291041 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 318 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291042 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 320 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291043 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 321 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291044 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 401 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291045 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 406 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291046 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 408 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291047 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 409 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291048 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 411 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291049 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 412 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291050 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 413 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291051 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 414 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291052 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 416 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291053 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 418 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291054 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 420 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015291055 707 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT 421 IOWA CITY52240 BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC BRECKENRIDGE APARTMENTS LLC 2607 MONROE ST MADISON, WI 537111015221073 620 S DUBUQUE ST UNIT A IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222001 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 101 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222002 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 102 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222003 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 103 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222004 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 104 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222005 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 201 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222006 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 202 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222007 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 203 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222008 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 204 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222009 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 205 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222010 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 206 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222011 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 207 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222012 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 208 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222013 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 209 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222014 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 210 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222015 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 211 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222016 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 212 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222017 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 213 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222018 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 214 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222019 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 215 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222020 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 216 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222021 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 217 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222022 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 301 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222023 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 302 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222024 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 303 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222025 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 304 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222026 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 305 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222027 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 306 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222028 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 307 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222029 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 308 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222030 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 309 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222031 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 310 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222032 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 311 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222033 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 312 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222034 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 313 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222035 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 314 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222036 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 315 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222037 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 316 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222038 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 317 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA52240
1015222039 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 401 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222040 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 402 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222041 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 403 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222042 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 404 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222043 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 405 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222044 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 406 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222045 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 407 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222046 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 408 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222047 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 409 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222048 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 410 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222049 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 411 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222050 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 412 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222051 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 413 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222052 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 414 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222053 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 415 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222054 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 416 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015222055 225 E PRENTISS ST UNIT 417 IOWA CITY52240 DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS LC DUBUQUE & PRENTISS INVESTMENTS 920 S DUBUQUE ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015212011 612 S CLINTON ST IOWA CITY52240 ROFFMAN, JOHN ROFFMAN, JOELLEN JOHN O & JOELLEN S ROFFMAN 1314 BURRY DR IOWA CITY, IA522461015212010 614 S CLINTON ST IOWA CITY52240 ROFFMAN, JOHN O ROFFMAN, JOELLEN S JOHN O & JOELLEN S ROFFMAN 1314 BURRY DR IOWA CITY, IA522461015212008 114 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY52240 ROFFMAN, JOHN ROFFMAN, JOELLEN JOHN O & JOELLEN S ROFFMAN 1314 BURRY DR IOWA CITY, IA522461015212005 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY52240 BIG BETTY LLCBIG BETTY LLC 122 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY, IA522401015212006 122 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY52240 BIG BETTY LLCBIG BETTY LLC 122 WRIGHT ST IOWA CITY, IA52240
A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, AND 8, ALL IN BLOCK 18 COUNTY SEAT
ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, IOWA ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 1 & 2,
PAGE 253 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 18, OF THE COUNTY SEAT ADDITION TO IOWA CITY,
IOWA; THENCE N 01˚15’47” W, ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET, 200.97
FEET; THENCE N 00˚47’29” W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 118.70 FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE
OF LOT 8; THENCE N 89˚22’53” E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF LOT 8, 150.00 FEET; THENCE S 00˚41’06”
E, 15.97 FEET; THENCE S 87˚16’28” E, 137.31 FEET; THENCE S 32˚51’20” W, 60.29 FEET; THENCE S
02˚26’27” E, 286.42 FEET; THENCE S 89˚21’34” W, 91.10 FEET; THENCE N 00˚52’18” W, 40.00 FEET TO
THE SW CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID BLOCK 18 AND THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LAFAYETTE
STREET ; THENCE S 89˚21’34” W ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 168.60 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 1.93 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
Date: April 14, 2021
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Kirk Lehmann, AICP, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Deferral of Hy-Vee Drive-Through Applications at 1125 N. Dodge Street (EXC21-0003)
and at 1720 Waterfront Drive (EXC21-0004)
Background
LT Leon Associates, on behalf of Hy-Vee, Inc., submitted two special exceptions requesting drive-
through facilities in Community Commercial (CC-2) zones associated with their Hy-Vee Aisles
Online pick-up program. The two applications are as follows:
1. EXC21-0003: Hy-Vee at 1125 North Dodge Street; and
2. EXC21-0004: Hy-Vee at 1720 Waterfront Drive.
The applicant has requested deferrals on both applications, which were initially scheduled for the
April 14, 2021 Board of Adjustment meeting. EXC21-0003 requires a rezoning prior to
consideration by the Board due to a Conditional Zoning Agreement on the property which will
need to be amended. For EXC21-0004, the applicant is substantially modifying their site plan,
which will require a resubmittal of most attachments on the application.
Recommendation
Once these items are finalized, staff will be able to complete its review and make a
recommendation. Because staff is not prepared to make a recommendation to Board of
Adjustment at this time, staff recommends deferring each application as follows:
1. EXC21-0003: Deferral until the property at 1125 N. Dodge Street is rezoned; and
2. EXC21-0004: Deferral until updated application materials for 1720 Waterfront Drive are
submitted.
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.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
MARCH 10, 2021 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius
MEMBERS ABSENT: Zephan Hazell
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Kirk Lehmann
OTHERS PRESENT: Keith Weggen, Britni Andreasson
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.
NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
Dulek noted that Hazell has submitted his resignation from the Board as he is moving out of
state with his final day being May 1, 2021.
Chrischilles nominated Pretorius as chair. Parker seconded the motion, a vote was taken and
the motion passed 3-0.
Chrischilles nominated Parker as vice chair.
Parker nominated Chrischilles as vice chair, Pretorius seconded the motion, a vote was taken
and the motion passed 3-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0001:
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 2 of 9
An application submitted by Britni Andreassen on behalf of Kum & Go, LC for a special
exception to allow changes to the total outdoor light output standards for approximately 1.15
acres of property located at 1310 S Gilbert St and 348 Highland Ave.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann began the staff report noting in terms of background the applicant is building a new
convenience store at the northeast corner of South Gilbert street and Highland Avenue. The
land was rezoned Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert in 2019 with conditions that were related to
closing access points on South Gilbert and Highland and some additional right-of-way on South
Gilbert Street. Then in 2020 three special exceptions were applied to this site, EXC19-02 to
establish the quick vehicle service use in the zone, EXC20-03 which waived a two-story
minimum building height with a requirement that the walls be a certain height to create the
appearance of a two-story building, and EX20-07 which waived parking setbacks from the 3rd
Street facade and also frontage and design related requirements for the north building face.
Then in December 2020 the applicant submitted a site plan to the City and upon review the City
found that the lighting standards were not met with regards to total light output, and so the
applicant has returned to request a special exception to allow a higher maximum total outdoor
light output.
Lehmann next showed an aerial map of the site which includes the existing Kum & Go on the
west side of the site and some light industrial buildings on the east side of the site. The current
zoning is Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert (RFC-SG), but it is surrounded by Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) uses to the north and east with more RFC-SG zones to the west, and then to
the south is Community Commercial (CC-2). Lehmann showed a picture of the existing building
and then the site plan. On the site plan he noted the building is on the southwest corner of site
and there are no access off South Gilbert Street, instead there's one access on Highland
Avenue and two from 3rd Street. Lehmann next showed the photometric plan and noted it
shows the level of illumination on the site at each individual area and shows the different kinds
of proposed lighting. In terms of expected light level, the numbers on the site plan are in foot
candles which is a measure of light intensity and is one lumen per square foot. Lehmann stated
where the plan shows a zero, there's no illumination. When a property is next to a residential
zone, 0.5 footcandles is what is allowed at the property line by Code. In this case, there are no
residential zones next to the site, but the 0.5 level is a good standard to keep in mind. He noted
to the south, the light extends into the right-of-way but doesn't make it to the other side of the
right-of-way, and it extends to the property line to the north.
Lehmann stated the Board of Adjustment is charged with approving, approval with conditions, or
denying the applications, based on the facts presented. To approve a special exception, the
Board must find the application meets all applicable approval criteria, in this case there are
specific standards pertaining to the waiver, and then also the general standards which are
required for all special exceptions.
Lehmann began with the specific standards at 14-4B-4B-12J which allow waivers from
development standards for quick vehicle servicing uses in the Riverfront Crossings District. The
standard that applies to this application is for properties in the Riverfront Crossing s District,
where it can be demonstrated that the proposed quick vehicle servicing use cannot comply with
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 3 of 9
this specific standard as indicated in subsections of Code. The Board may grant a special
exception to modify or waive the provision, provided that the intent of the development
standards is not unduly compromised. As part of that, the Board can impose conditions as
required. Lehmann then reviewed the staff findings. First, the property is in the Riverfront
Crossing District, so the applicant can request a waiver from the standards outlined in 14-4B-
4B-12i which requires compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Code. In this case, the applicant
is requesting modification to 14-2G-1C which talks about the applicability of the site
development standards in the Code, specifically, that the maximum total outdoor light output be
increased from 100,000 to 200,000 initial lumens per net acre found in the site development
standards at 14-5G-5C. Lehmann explained that what they’re requesting in effect is to change
the lighting environment district from an E2 medium ambient lighting standard to an E3 high
ambient lighting standard. Lehmann explained the two different sets of lighting standards. The
E2 medium standard generally applies to higher density multifamily and lower intensity
commercial zones, in addition to the current zoning designation Riverfront Crossing South
Gilbert, so this includes most multifamily zones such as PRM, RM-20, RM-44, and RNS-20, and
then it also applies to all other Riverfront Crossings zones, with the exception of the West
Riverfront zone. The E3 high ambient lighting standard generally applies to higher intensity
commercial, industrial, and research zones and before the property was rezoned, it was an
intensive commercial zone (CI-1). Typically a CI-1 zone would use this high ambient lighting
standard if it’s outside of the Riverfront Crossings District. The West Riverfront zone also uses
an E3 high ambient lighting district, as do the Central Business zones and the Community
Commercial zone to the south. Lehmann stated in this case, regardless of whether the property
was rezoned, it would have had to comply with the E2 medium standard because it's in the
Riverfront Crossing District though it was previously zoned CI-1.
Lehmann stated the intent of the outdoor lighting standards is to reduce obtrusive aspects of
outdoor light while preserving safety, security, and the nighttime use and enjoyment of property .
The total outdoor light output standards which they want modified have a purpose to prevent
excessive overlighting and light pollution. Lehmann noted this property is located along the
Highway 1 corridor and is near some intensive commercial and light industrial properties. Those
properties tend to be less sensitive to ambient light and outside the Riverfront Crossings District,
are in zones that use the E3 high ambient lighting standard. With special outdoor uses such as
commercial service stations, additional lighting is typical. The City’s outdoor lighting standards
include some exceptions for special outdoor uses like outdoor recreational facilities and display
lots, but it does include vehicle service stations.
Lehmann stated the experts on lighting standards are the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)
and they provide some recommended lighting levels to ensure adequate illumination and safety
of occupants. For this site, because of the use type and use by the general public, the IES
recommend a higher level of lighting than what is currently allowed in the zone. All of these
things lead staff to find that the request doesn't unduly compromise the intent of the
development standards required for this specific criterion.
Lehmann next moved on to the general standards, found at 14-4B-3 and there are seven
general standards. The first is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Lehmann stated in this case
there is an existing convenience store with fuel sales at the site. Additionally, there have alrea dy
been three special exceptions the Board has approved, including the new convenience store
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 4 of 9
with fuel sales, the second story minimum building height and the three-foot parking setback on
the 3rd Street facade and frontage related design requirements for the north building facade.
Lehmann noted in this case, the requested waiver will result in more ambient light throughout
the site which will improve safety for employees, customers and others, and the IES standards
recommend a higher level of lighting then was currently allowed in the zone. Therefore, staff
finds that additional lighting will meet the standard.
Lehmann stated the second standard is that this specific proposal 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. He confirmed this new request will not
change the use or access to the site, it is along a busy commercial corridor with higher levels of
ambient light, nearby properties contain higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses
which are less sensitive to ambient light, and nearby properties are in zones that utilize the E3
high ambient lighting standard, except for those within the Riverfront Crossings District. In this
case, the higher levels of ambient light that are proposed are primarily to the east and north and
not towards the mixed-use developments to the west. Lehmann noted they received a comment
about a property to the northeast that has some residential uses, so he showed on a map where
that property was located. The owner was concerned about light shining in the windows of the
apartments in their building. Lehmann stated in this case, the special exception applies only to
the total light output, it does not affect the physical controls that control glare and help minimize
light trespass on surrounding properties. Additionally, the photometric plan submitted show s that
light trespass should not affect that property to the northeast. Therefore, staff finds that
increasing the total light output to an E3 high ambient lighting standard will not injure the use or
enjoyment of property in the immediate vicinity or affect property values. Lehmann showed the
site plan with an overlay of light trespass on surrounding properties and noted most of the light
trespass starts to get into the property to the north, but it doesn't get past that railroad right-of-
way to the east.
The third general standard is that the establishment of the specific proposed exception does not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement for property for uses permitted in
the district. Lehmann noted in this case surrounding properties are developed but may be
eligible for redevelopment under the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code, especially the
property to the north. Redevelopment of the subject property and the requested modified
standard won't affect development or improvement of surrounding properties.
The fourth general standard is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary
facilities have been or are being provided. Lehmann stated the subject property already has
access to all necessary utilities and redevelopment won't require off-site improvements.
The fifth criterion is tied to ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public
streets. Lehmann stated the current site has access off South Gilbert, Highland Avenue and 3rd
Street. In this case, due to the rezoning, the proposed development will improve traffic
congestion and ingress and egress because access points off South Gilbert will be closed and
there will be only one access point off Highland Avenue and two access points off 3rd Street.
Lehmann explained this will relieve traffic congestion around the intersection of Highland
Avenue and South Gilbert Street. In addition, the proposed exceptional will provide better
nighttime visibility at the site access points and will improve safety as well as traffic flow.
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 5 of 9
The sixth criterion states that except for these specific regulations and standards applicable to
the exception, it will comply with all other standards in the zone. Lehmann reiterated the
property has already received several special exceptions that modify standards which are
approved. He stated all other aspects of the compliance will be reviewed upon site plan review
and the photometric plan discrepancy is the only outstanding item to be addressed.
Finally, the seventh criterion is that the proposed exception will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. Lehmann stated the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map indicates this area for mixed use development which could include retail, office,
and residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan also supports urban infill redevelopment,
including in the Riverfront Crossings District, and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for
pedestrian scale development along South Gilbert Street with buildings near the street a nd
parking behind. The Plan calls for retail convenience in this area to serve local demand, and this
area is envisioned for commercial uses of some sort when it gets redeveloped. Therefore, staff
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0001, to change the maximum total outdoor light output
(including both fully shielded and unshielded fixtures) from 100,000 initial lumens per net acre to
200,000 initial lumens per net acre for the properties located at 1310 S. Gilbert Street and 348
Highland Avenue
Lehmann circled back to the public comment staff received, a copy of the letter was in the
agenda packet, and again it's regarding light trespass into the properties, the apartments to the
northeast, which he already discussed.
Keith Weggen (Civil Design Advantage, Grimes, IA) noted staff did an outstanding job
summarizing the project and he would just like to highlight a little bit more information about
what they went through in terms of trying to find ways to make the lighting work on the site.
Initially when they submitted the project there was a little bit of confusion surrounding which
lighting level would be allowed on the site, they initially prepared a site lighting plan that was the
E2 illumination level and quickly learned that they couldn't do it and be consistent with the
recommendations for minimum light levels. Weggen said it came down to a matter of safety in
terms of the use of the site and considering the vast range of ages of who would be visiting the
site whether it be customers or employees. They spent several weeks trying to find some
different ways to modify the site lighting plan, for example they tried to take out a bunch of
different fixtures, relocated fixtures, they changed bulbs in the design, adjusted pole heights,
moved things around but no matter how many fixtures they took away or swapped areas with,
they could not get to that recommended level for safety, as noted by IES, so staying within that
restriction would end up with a site that was highly not recommended and not consistent with
those safety recommendations. Weggen reiterated they tried everything they could think of to
make it work without needing tonight’s special exception.
Chrischilles asked what the lighting level is at the Riverside Drive Kum & Go. Weggen stated
that lighting at that site was at the E3 lighting standard so it is similar to what they’re proposing
here. He noted however, that's a different sized site so the total illumination levels are more
than what they need at this location. Chrischilles asked if there have been any complaints from
the apartment building directly to the north of the Riverside Drive location with regards to light.
Weggen is not aware of any. He noted the pole mounted lights they use are downcast fixtures
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 6 of 9
and have cut off shields within them, so they don't bleed beyond certain areas or certain
distances away from the pole, so with regards to concerns from the neighbors to the northeast,
the two poles that are nearest to that east property line are actually oriented to the west and are
downcast fixtures with shields built into the backside of them to limit light that would go east. He
said they will four poles and the rest is either building or soft mount lights.
Chrischilles asked who did the analysis of the spread of the light, was it done by Weggen’s
company or by the City. Weggen replied they have a team of lighting designers that work with a
lighting manufacturer and lighting engineers and designers that do the vast majority of the site
lighting plans for Kum & Go. Chrischilles asked if they agreed with the lights and where the light
would bleed. Weggen confirmed they did the photometric plan, so the numbers seen on the
drawings show the lighting levels.
Chrischilles asked if the lights are in place now. Weggen stated they're not on the site yet,
nothing that's been proposed with this project has been constructed yet, so what is seen out
there today is what's been existing for the last several years. Chrischilles asked how they do the
analysis if the lights are not there. Weggen explained they take the site plan that they have in
AutoCAD and the lighting manufacturers provided a whole slew of different file types that tell
them exactly what their product will output in terms of lighting levels. He stated there's a lot of
different software components that go into that in terms of the bulb light, the bulb power, the
size and height of where the fixture would be mounted, whether or not it has a shield, and that is
how lighting designers do photometric plans.
Parker asked if the IES is the only organizational body that measures lumens or is there a
second opinion. Weggen stated there may be others, but IES is the most well known and most
referred to in terms of industry standard.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Chrischilles stated that if the lighting spread analysis is accurate, everything should be okay.
Parker asked if the only concern from public comment was to the northeast of this site and
nothing from the new mixed use apartment buildings to the west.
Chrischilles noted the plan shows that light doesn't cross the road though, according to the light
plan they provided.
Weggen added that there are street lights in the right of way that may throw more light in that
direction than this site, especially since most of this lighting is on the east side of the building.
Chrischilles added that another consideration is the safety of the site at night and that you want
as much light as you can safely have without impacting other people.
Parker stated at the same time, City Council approved these standards and light pollution was
probably on top of their mind but it’s probably correct that street lights put out more light
pollution towards residential areas than the site.
Pretorius noted she had no comments to add.
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 7 of 9
Chrischilles moved for approval of EXC21-0001, to change the maximum total outdoor
light output (including both fully shielded and unshielded fixtures) from 100,000 initial
lumens per net acre to 200,000 initial lumens per net acre for the properties located at
1310 S. Gilbert Street and 348 Highland Avenue.
Parker seconded the motion.
Parker stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the
staff report of this meeting date, March 10, 2021 with the recommended conditions presented by
staff, 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 3-0.
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.
Next is a request submitted by Kum & Go, LC to extend the expiration date to September 10,
2021 for EXC19-12, a special exception approved to allow a quick vehicle servicing use in the
Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert zone, EXC20-03, a special exception to waive the minimum
2-story building requirement, and EXC20-07, a special exception waiving the 3-foot parking
setback behind the 3rd Street secondary street façade and from frontage type and related
design.
Chrischilles moved to approve extend the expiration date to September 10, 2021 for
EXC19-12, EXC20-03, and EXC20-07.
Parker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-0.
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.
CONSIDER THE DECEMBER 9, 2020 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of December 9, 2020. Parker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Dulek alerted the Board to the parties of an upcoming appeal in case there is a conflict of
interest because the rules allow for alternate members from a prior Board to sit in if there is a
conflict by one of the current Board members. Dulek stated the appeal is on a vacant lot at 319
Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2021
Page 8 of 9
North Van Buren and the current owner is Prestige Properties. Prestige Properties is owned by
Michael Oliveira and the appeal is submitted by David Moore. Dulek stated if any of the Board
members may have a conflict with that please contact Lehmann. She also noted that their office
has a conflict of interest during appeals, so North Liberty City Attorney Grant Leintz will be
representing the Board during this particular appeal rather than Dulek.
Chrischilles asked what the appeal is about. Dulek noted all information will be in the next Board
packet but it's an appeal about a minor modification that was granted. A minor modification is
similar to a special exception, but it's granted by staff. This one was a minor adjustment to some
regulations, applied for by the property owner and granted, and then the appeal was filed by a
neighboring property owner. Dulek cannot go into any more details at this time. Staff will send
out an email listing all the appellants and addresses so the Board can decide if they have
conflicts.
Parker asked what the date for this appeal case was. Lehmann said it will be April 14. He also
noted that will be Hazell’s last meeting. Chrischilles noted the Board will be down two people
then. Dulek noted Council may appoint somebody next Tuesday to take Cox’s spot.
ADJOURNMENT:
Parker moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME TERM EXP. 1/8 2/12 4/8 5/13 5/27 6/10 7/15 10/14 11/18 12/9 3/10
CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X X X X X X X X X X X
COX, ERNIE 12/31/2020 X O/E X X X X X O/E O/E O/E -- --
HAZELL, ZEPHAN 12/31/2021 X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 0/E X X X X X X X X X X
PRETORIUS, AMY 12/31/2023 X X X X X X X X X X X
Vacant seat
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member