Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-22 Info Packet City Council I nformation Packet April 22, 2021 IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule Miscellaneous IP2.Memo from Community Police Review B oard: Response to Update on C P R B Recommendation to the City Council IP3.Memo from I nterim City Attorney Dulek: C P R B Recommendations to the City Council IP4.Community P olice Review Board Community F orum - May 17 IP5.Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I - Parking IP6.Press Release: Project 51 - sharing 51 stories of hope on climate change frontlines Draft Minutes IP7.Board of Adjustment: A pril 14 IP8.L ibrary B oard of Trustees: March 25 IP9.L ibrary B oard of Trustees: April 1 IP10.Senior Center Commission: April 15 April 22, 2021 City of Iowa City Page 1 Item Number: 1. April 22, 2021 Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Council Tentative Meeting S chedule City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Subject to change April 22, 2021 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:00 PM Special Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 6, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, July 19, 2021 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Zoom Meeting Platform Hosted by ICCSD Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 3, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 17, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform 6:00 PM Formal Meeting Item Number: 2. April 22, 2021 Memo from Community Pol ice Review Board : Respon se to Update on C P R B Recommendation to th e City Cou n cil AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from Community Police Review B oard: Response to Update on C P R B Recommendation to the City Council Item Number: 3. April 22, 2021 Memo from Interim City Attorn ey Du l ek: C P R B Recommendations to th e City Council AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Memo from I nterim City Attorney Dulek: C P R B Recommendations to the City Council Item Number: 4. April 22, 2021 Community Pol ice Review Board Commu n ity F oru m - May 17 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Community P olice Review Board Community F orum - May 17 Item Number: 5. April 22, 2021 Civil Service Examin ation : Main ten ance Worker I - Parking AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I - Parking Item Number: 6. April 22, 2021 Press Rel ease: Project 51 - sh arin g 51 stories of h ope on climate ch ange fron tlin es AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Press Release: Project 51 - sharing 51 stories of hope on climate change frontlines Item Number: 7. April 22, 2021 Board of Ad j u stmen t: Ap ril 14 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Board of Adjustment: A pril 14 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING APRIL 14, 2021 – 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Zephan Hazell, Bryce Parker, Amy Pretorius REPLACEMENT MEMBER: Ernie Cox STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Danielle Sitzman LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Grant Lientz, City Attorney from North Liberty OTHERS PRESENT: Sarah Clark, Allison Wagner, Andy Litton, Brian Richards, Darlene Clausen, Dave Moore, Diana Harris, Dorothy Fowles, Don Fowles, Drew Jones, James Larew, Lee Dreier, Linda McGuire, Maeve Clark, Michael Apt, Michael Welch, Richard Blazk, Sharon Degraw, Rachel Harris, Michael Oliveira CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:20 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. APPEAL ITEM APL21-0001: An appeal of a decision by the Building Official to grant a minor modification (MOD20-0009) reducing the side setbacks to build a new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street: alleging an error in the determination that all applicable approval criteria were met. Hazell stated he will recuse himself from this case due to a past interaction both with the property and with Prestige. Lehmann noted former Board of Adjustment member Ernie Cox has been appointed as a temporary replacement for this item so there will be five members of the Board for this appeal. 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. Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 2 of 27 Lehmann began the staff report with a brief introduction to appeals and the Board’s role in making a decision. This is an appeal alleging an error in the building official’s decision to grant a minor modification that reduces the side setbacks at 319 North Van Buren. Regarding appeals for alleged errors, the Board of Adjustment hears and decides on administrative orders, requirements, decisions, or determinations as staff enforces and implements the zoning code. In this case, the formal decision that the building official made is what is being appealed. As a quasi-judicial body, the Board's decision is binding on all parties unless overturned on appeal to the District Court. The Board of Adjustment for this appeal may affirm, reverse or modify in whole or in part the appealed order, requirement, decision or determination. So based on the facts presented tonight, in the agenda packet, and in any public input, the Board must determine one of the following; that staff did not exercise its powers and follow the guidelines established by law. In this case, that law is the City Code which was used to make the decision and Sitzman will cover how minor modifications work in the City in more detail. The second is that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. Those are really the two standards by which the Board can overturn an appeal. The appellant will speak as to their provided materials as to why they think that decision was an error, but the Board must review everything and make a decision. Sitzman introduced herself as the Development Services Coordinator for the City and the acting Building Official on this case. She began her report showing the location of the subject property noting the property is an existing vacant non-conforming lot of about 2800 square feet. It is part of the original town plat of Iowa City and is currently zoned Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) and is outside of any historic preservation or conservation district. It's also not in the Central Planning District. Sitzman next gave a brief overview of minor modifications. Minor modifications are on a continuum of complexity and authority, ranging from decisions that are truly administrative and only subject to staff review all the way to things that are more legislative and are determined by City Council. So in that continuum of decisions, on the far end are truly administrative or the day-to-day activities of staff which are undertaken to administer permits. Staff is constantly checking ordinances to make sure compliance is met. These tend to be simple things like permits and uses that are spelled out in the City’s ordinances. The next step up in in complexity from that is where she would place minor modifications, they are still an administrative process, meaning they're overseen by staff, but they blend a few features of things that tend towards more legislative actions such as requiring notice to neighbors, a hearing, and some other things. The decisions that are made are based on criteria in the Code and are similar to special exceptions this body frequently makes decisions on. On the far end of that spectrum are things enacted by City Council legislatively through their recommended process such as by having the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation first. Sitzman reiterated that the Zoning Code gives staff authority to grant minor modifications and there's a specific list of 23 standards that can be modified in this way. Staff is also limited in the degree of change that's allowed, whether it's a measurement based on feet or percentage of reduction or, in some cases, numbers of people that are subject to a particular use. This is intended to provide flexibility for unusual situations in which the strict application is impractical. Sitzman stated in this case the criteria needed to be reviewed by conducting an administrative hearing and presenting written notice in a certain timeframe to surrounding property owners. Finally, kind of peculiar to minor modifications, the Code does not set precedent, each minor modification is unique and may involve other staff depending on which of the 23 standards is considered, sometimes it also includes the staff design review committee, the department director, others in development services, or even the city engineer Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 3 of 27 Sitzman stated specific to this particular minor modification the property owner applied for a reduction in the required side setbacks along the north property line by two feet and along the south property line by one foot and that is one of those 23 allowable requests for minor modification, it is number seven on the list in the Code and allows required setbacks from a side lot line to be reduced up to two feet, but in no case shall a required setback from a side lot line be reduced to less than three feet. This request was to accommodate construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling on the subject property. The required setbacks are normally five feet for the first two stories of the building and an additional two feet for each additional story above that and the overall height limit on structures in this particular zoning district is 35 feet, regardless of the number of stories. So, the applicant was requesting a reduction from the seven-foot side setback requirement to five feet on the north side of the property and six feet on the south side of the property in order to build a three-story dwelling. Sitzman noted other than those standards in the zoning code related to dimensional requirements, this property is not subject to other special design standards for single-family homes because it's not in an historic district and it's not in another district with additional design requirements, it is simply the same as any other single-family home throughout the City. Sitzman stated there are five criteria that staff uses to review minor modifications. The first criterion is there has to be a special circumstance, such as size, shape, topography, location, or something that qualifies a special circumstance or an unusual situation. In this case, this is a non-conforming lot, so it is special in that it's quite small. In addition, the request to build new on an old block is an unusual circumstance. It is called infill and typically infill projects have many challenges because the standards change over time, the desires and what is built for the sizes of houses and the things people want in their houses change over time. In this circumstance it's a very old lot and this new house would be the newest building in that area and newly constructed single-family homes commonly built today have features that just weren't even imagined at the time that this lot might have been platted. For example, it seems odd but a garage for an automobile was not necessarily in anybody's thinking at the time of this platting, also indoor plumbing and the sizing of fixtures today are quite different. Sitzman noted the property is bounded by E. Davenport, N. Van Buren, E. Bloomington and N. Gilbert Streets so staff looked at properties across Van Buren and Davenport Streets and that info was included in the agenda packet. A quick snap of the assessor’s exterior images and the addresses were looked at when this particular property was considered for the second criterion, and Sitzman felt that the minor modification will not be worse than the base standards for being detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. In this instance there is an alley access for the subject property that is similar to existing development in this area. Light, air and opportunities for privacy will be maintained through other dimensional standards that would still apply to this and there is an inherent limit on the extent of a reduction allowed by a minor modification. Sitzman thinks the intention of putting those hard limits on how much modification can be made illustrates the fact that it's intended to be truly minor. Additionally, there was no assumption made about other properties making up the difference, for example, if the house adjacent to the subject property had a larger than usual setback, that was not taken into account because what happens on adjacent properties is not something they wanted to assume as it affects what could happen here, everything was considered with regards to this property by itself. In the context of Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 4 of 27 the block, Sitzman observed typical two- and three-story buildings present in the surrounding vicinity, buildings maybe up to 35 feet in height, regardless of the number of stories, in the surrounding districts so the height of the building was really not part of that consideration. Sitzman stated the third criterion is if it meets the limits of the minor modification, and yes, the requested modification is less than or equal to the amount allowed. It also retains the minimum spacing dimension necessary to accommodate the change. Sitzman also noted this is the only modification this applicant requested, applicants could potentially ask for more than one minor modification to accommodate development and that has been seen in several applications in recent years with three or four minor modifications necessary to accommodate a development. Lastly, there was no condition place by staff on this applicant. The fourth criterion is looking at the conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified. Sitzman noted in this case, setbacks are defined in the Code and she explained those in her memo and previously noted there is an inherent limit on the extent of the reduction that can be granted by minor modification. The intent of that is to preserve setbacks so they're not entirely waving the setback, just reducing it from the amount that's allowed by Code. The final criterion states the requested minor medication is required to meet all other standards. that the only thing being waived is the minor modification requested. Lehmann stated staff received five public comments, three of which were included in the revised packet that he sent out yesterday (Larew, Dreier and Freerks – all in support of the appellant) and then two more were received today from Clark which appear to include the same content with slightly different formatting. The Clark messages were also in support of the appellant. Chrischilles noted on the decision made by the building official, it said the subject property does not meet current zoning standards for lot frontage or minimum lot area but single-family uses are considered conforming and may still be established on such a lot of record. He asked Sitzman to explain that. Sitzman explained there's another section of the zoning code relating to nonconformities which are things that met the Code at the time they were constructed or platted but as the Code changed, they became non-conforming. That is the relevant section relating to a lot of those different circumstances. In the case of single-family homes, there's a bit of a pass that allows a single-family use to have more leeway to be developed under nonconforming circumstances than many other things. Sitzman stated this lot is non-conforming, it's a legal non-conforming lot for the use of single-family development. The lot does not meet current standards for lot area or lot width, but it does meet the current standards for lot frontage. Cox understands that this lot is currently owned by Prestige Properties and they intend to construct the proposed building and sell it to Dr. and Dr. Richards to be a single-family dwelling. Sitzman confirmed that is their understanding, Prestige Properties is the current owner requesting the minor modification and is a representative of potential future owners. Cox asked if there is a requirement on Prestige that this property is sold as a single-family home. Sitzman stated the requirements that the City has for uses are based on the zoning district in which it is located, regardless of ownership, so in this zone, single-family detached structures are what they would expect to be built at this location. Dave Moore (425 E. Davenport Street) first wanted to thank the Board of Adjustment for hearing Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 5 of 27 the grounds of their appeal today, he is one of a group of co-appellants that submitted the appeal. All the appellants live within 200 feet of the lot. They include Andy Litton, Don and Dorothy Fowles, Darlene Clausen and Sean Colbert. Moore noted his name is on the application because it had to be signed electronically, and he was the only signed appellant. Moore stated their grounds for appeal has been a group effort and included assistance from other neighbors who worked together studying the Code and compiling data. He wants to assure the Board the appeal by this group is only about the Zoning Code and the criteria that must be met to grant a minor modification, the appeal has nothing to do with issues relating to student rentals or speculation about the occupancy of the home, and nothing to do with details about the historic architecture. He acknowledged some of the letters from the January 14 hearing may have strayed into territory outside of the criteria for the minor modification, but the majority spoke to issues pertaining to the criteria at hand. Regardless of these letters, or any other letters that may have come in since, they want to be clear that their appeal has nothing to do with who will own or occupy this property and it's only about the pertinent criteria. He would like to mention, however, that every single owner-occupied household within 200 feet wrote a letter in opposition and there were even some rental property owners that objected and there were no letters in support other than the letter from a lawyer for Prestige Properties. Moore stated there are five criteria that must be met for a modification or waiver to be granted, and they want to emphasize that every single one of those criteria has to be met. If even one of those criteria is not met, the decision of the building official has to be reversed. Moore contends the application from Prestige Property has failed to meet criteria one, two and four and the building official made an error in her January 14 decision approving the minor modification. Beginning with criteria one, Moore noted it states special circumstances must apply to the property which makes it impractical to comply with the required setbacks. Moore stated the lot at 319 North Van Buren is a clean slate, the zoning rules were known to the owner going in, and as they demonstrated in their appeal document, it is practical to design a reasonably sized house on the lot that conforms with the setbacks and height requirements. Prestige asserts and the building official concurs that the circumstances of the lot make application of the side yard setback requirements, as written in Sitzman’s first decision, “impractical, with respect to the construction of a single-family home desirable to a modern-day homeowner”. Moore noted in the letter from Prestige’s lawyer there's a sentence asserting that it is nearly impossible to accommodate the needs of a modern-day homeowner that has a need for more square footage and attached garages, the lawyer uses the phrase modern-day homeowner multiple times. The implication is that if this desired building is not built on this site, that isn't going to be practical because it doesn't meet the needs of a modern-day homeowner. Moore asserts statements like this are about something that is desired on this lot, not at all about what is practical. There are plenty of people all over the north side who are homeowners that don't wake up in the morning broken hearted because they don't live in an approximately 2700 square foot home that has four bedrooms, four baths and three parking stalls. Moore points out this small lot may create challenges for development, but it does not deny an opportunity to build a desirable house consistent in size, scale, and the amenities, while still conforming to the existing zoning regulations. The justification that it must fit the needs of a modern-day homeowner is incorrect for two reasons. The phrase itself used as a justification is incredibly subjective and what it really expresses is a desire. Second, and this is a big one, there are modern homes being built all over the City that are smaller than this three-story 2700 square feet four-bedroom house that Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 6 of 27 would fit into this lot and would fit the zoning code. Moore showed some designs of houses that would fit on the lot. The first was a 1120 square-foot, two-story house which would meet all setback requirements and with just a partially finished basement, the house would end up with approximately 2500 square feet of living area plus a two-car attached garage. That house would be larger than the average single-family house in the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) zone that 319 North Van Buren is in. The average house in that zone is 1538 square feet. Moore next showed Appendix A from the Appeal, a chart which includes data from the City Assessor’s page on the 171 single family properties located within the north side RNS-12 zone. Prestige Property wants to put an approximately 2700 square foot house on a 2800 square foot lot, the average size of a single-family dwelling here is 1538 square feet, and the average lot size is 5007 square feet, nearly double the size of 319 North Van Buren and not one lot has a three-story house. They found seven lots that could be considered two and a half story houses and also on this chart there are some non-conforming lots that are approximately like the one that Prestige has, but what Prestige wants to build is a 2700 square feet house and it's just too big of a house for the lot, not one of these other non-conforming lots have a three car covered parking space, some have one and some have two, but three seems unreasonable for such a small lot. Moore stated they feel the building official was mistaken saying that it is impractical to comply with the zoning code because so many houses could be built here. Criterion one necessary for approval of a minor modification has not been met. Andy Litton (owner of properties at 323 and 331 North Van Buren Street) noted there are several non-conforming lots, and houses that fit into these small lots, on the north side and noted Prestige Properties proposes to build a 2700 square foot home with three covered parking spaces, and that is just too large for that lot. The resulting building will be out of scale with the neighborhood. The decision of the building official made the case that it is impractical to develop this lot with a reasonably sized house and adhere to the zoning code, and to think a two story, two car garage and over 2000 square feet could fit without any special treatment. To justify approving the minor modification, the building official responded in an April 9 memo that “newly constructed single-family homes are commonly built with attached garages for automobiles and room sizes that accommodate modern amenities such as closets and full-size plumbing fixtures”. Litton stated they looked at newer neighborhoods like the Peninsula, Churchill Meadows, Country Club Estates on the westside and Whispering Meadows, and their lots of 3500 to 5000 square feet have modern homes with two car garage and are well under 2000 square feet of above ground floor area, some have basements, most have two car garages, some have one car. Prestige argues that a modern house would require over 2000 square feet and three covered parking spaces but Litton has shown that there are new houses being built and sold throughout Iowa City that are smaller than what is proposed and these houses would better fit the small lot in the neighborhood as intended by the Zoning Code. Moore continued by noting the buildings official’s decision states that the modification granted “represents the minimum dimension needed to accommodate the proposed development”, Moore noted the term proposed development appears to suggest that the site should submit to the house design and not the other way around, and what Prestige wants to do needs a larger lot. It seems their request and the official’s decision focuses on unusual situations that are applicable to the desired design of this house, not the property itself. It is a design that makes the stricter application impractical, but the zoning language for minor modifications is for situations relative to the property. What is proposed is just too much house for the lot and Prestige and the building official have failed to make the case that it is impractical to develop this lot with a reasonably sized house and adhere to the zoning code. Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 7 of 27 Moore next discussed criteria two and four. Criterion two is “a minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or be injurious to the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located” and criterion four is “the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purposes of the regulation modified”. Moore acknowledged it took him a while to figure out criterion four and how these two criteria are directly linked to each other, but the misuse of the intent of criterion four can lead to consequences which are the detriments mentioned in criterion two. Moore stated he and his wife have lived in this neighborhood for over 40 years and were once the youngest family and now may be the oldest. They have been looking out their windows at a relatively open sky for a long time. He understands that doesn't give them any special privileges, but it does give them a certain degree of loyalty to the best interests of the neighborhood. He also acknowledged he had no idea about the zoning code before this letter came in the mail last December, or about a minor modification and it seemed like such a small thing, a foot here, but he sensed shortly afterwards that no matter what they call it, it wasn't anything minor, this was a majorly big building and a major change in the north side, and, possibly, a major precedent. Moore stated anything that could cause such an uproar among everybody in the neighborhood who saw the designs couldn't be minor, it was major, so he went to try to figure out the code. Sean Colbert, probably the youngest homeowner in the neighborhood, helped Moore understand this code. To quote from Colbert’s letter, “14-4B-1 states that the minor modifications requested shall be in conformity with the intent and purposes of the regulation modified. The regulation to be modified is contained within 14-2A-4, which presents five purposes of minimum setbacks, which include: reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the city’s neighborhoods; provide flexibility to site to building so that is compatible with buildings in vicinity”; and then in regards to the other purposes of minimum setbacks he mentioned natural lighting, reasonable distance between buildings, etc. Colbert then writes “the provisions of this title are intended to implement the city of Iowa City's comprehensive plan in a matter that promotes the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City.” And Colbert mentions that the zoning code is a tool to execute this plan, the setback modification, he says that could be allowed in Chapter 4 is a permissive portion of the code, it's not mandatory. Colbert asks the City to please reject this minor modification request. Moore appreciates Colbert’s words and when he heard Colbert would have to work tonight and may not be able to attend this meeting, he asked Colbert to write a few sentences about himself and this is what Colbert wrote. “I’m 29 years old, City High graduate, a maintenance mechanic and a Union steward at General Mills. I've lived in this house since 2019 and I was born in the hospital I can see from my backyard.” Moving on, Moore reiterated the building official states it is her opinion the minor modification conforms with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, but she offers no facts to support the statement, other than to say that the arrangement of the proposal development on the lot is “similar to the other existing dwellings along the alleys in this neighborhood”. In the April 9 memorandum that just came a few days ago, the building official states many two- and three- story buildings are present in the blocks surrounding the subject property, including in the immediate 200-foot notification area and “it is common for such buildings to also not meet the current setback requirements. As such, though the proposal is uncommon, it generally reflects the building scale and placement of structures in the area.” As Moore already alluded to, they looked at all the properties and there are no three-story buildings that are non-conforming in terms of setback in the vicinity, there's only one two-story building that is non-conforming. The appellants believe this is a serious error on the part of the building official and it contradicts the Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 8 of 27 finding that the proposed three story 35-foot-tall building generally reflects the building scale and placement structures in this area. Moore also noted while it's true that the setbacks are similar, some of these properties are one- and two-story structures and not subject to additional setbacks, so the decision makes a setback rule which applies to three-story buildings irrelevant. Additionally, not conforming to the intent of these regulations has consequences and they believe it will diminish light and air to neighboring dwellings, the setbacks are all about the need for more space around taller buildings to ensure light and airflow. The neighbors at 323 North Van Buren would be denied sunlight, especially in the winter when it's crucial for the enjoyment of a home. They believe it will not provide opportunity for privacy between dwellings or promote a reasonable physical relationship between residences. The proposed building will tower over the other buildings as it's going to stand 10 feet taller and it's actually 15 feet taller than the roof line as defined by zoning code. Lastly, it will not reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the vicinity nor will it be compatible with buildings in the vicinity. Moore next showed a video of the area for December and how the light moves to help visualize how the area will be shaded with a three-story building next door. Moore reiterated this is a small lot, it's one of the smallest in the neighborhood and this house would be the largest and tallest on the block and the fifth largest house within the entire north side RNS-12. The proposed three-story building with this flat roof and monolithic shape will dominate the surrounding neighborhood and clearly does not conform to the intent of the zoning code criterion four, it will be detrimental and injurious to the adjacent properties so in the end it just doesn't stand to reason that zoning standards should be modified. Moore showed again the frontal view of the properties in the area, with the heights listed and noted the roof peak of the red house and peak on the yellow house as much shorter than the proposed 35-foot house. Pretorius noted the only thing that the City granted was the actual setback reduction, one foot on one side and two feet on the other side. No one could stop a three-story building from being constructed, and they keep touching on the height of this building, which, to her knowledge, the Board has no ability to reverse or prevent. The special consideration was about the setbacks. Moore agreed that the design was not the main issue, but the idea is that these larger setbacks are necessary to build such a tall building and it's unlikely that the builder would build a skinny tall house there. The height and the setbacks are directly related because getting up to a three- story building is what is kicking in the setbacks. Pretorius understands but if Prestige and the buyer were to shave the one foot off the one side and two on the other, it would drop it to 2400-some square feet. Would this group no longer be against the building? Is it truly the setbacks that are the issue, or is it a different direction like the height? With the presentation about the shadowing, she wanted to make sure that the direction they were going is clear to the Board, as far as what they were actually appealing on this. Moore stated they have never been posed that hypothetical question but will think about that and try to answer at the end of his presentation. He wanted to reemphasize a few more points, one thing that needs to be clear is the decision renders the provision for setbacks meaningless. It flies in the face of the zoning code to put such a tall building on a lot too small to achieve the setback, and this setback is only required for a house that is three stories tall, and the building official’s decision contains no discussion of what constitutes harm. A provision for a greater setback for a taller building assumes harm if there is not an adequate setback. The proposed Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 9 of 27 three-story building fails the intent of the zoning code, that a general building scale and placement of structures in neighborhoods promotes reasonable physical relationships, etc. A reasonable, good-sized, two-story building could meet the setback standard where they wouldn't have to ask for setback changes, and there are no properties in the neighborhood where a 35-foot-tall building is only five feet from a residential property line, in fact there are no three stories. Allowing a three-story building that does not meet the required seven-foot setback will be granting this property special privileges that have negative effects on its neighbors, approval of such a building is counter to the basic principles of zoning law. The property should be treated in a similar manner, it defies logic that one of the smallest lots in the zone should be granted special privileges to build one of the largest buildings. Moore wanted to reiterate they want to see a new house on this property that fits the neighborhood. He showed a few more slides to give a sense of the scale, the existing buildings in the neighborhood, and how the proposed three-story building would relate to the rest of the properties in the neighborhood. Moore noted the Prestige’s attorney also addressed this issue of height in his letter and cited it as one of the tallest in the neighborhood. The attorney cited other houses in the area that were tall. One on Bloomington Street is 27.5 feet to the peak of the roof and another cited is 25.3 feet to its peak and a final house that is 27.8 feet to the peak. Even the apartment building across the street is only 27.8 feet tall. Moore showed a few more pictures taken from the assessor's website to show the scale and how things fit in the neighborhood. In closing, Moore stated the response to Pretorius’ question is that the height and setbacks are related, and while they have no idea what will be built on this lot, if this modification is denied they would hope that they build a two-story house. What is clear is that they should not be given special privileges that harm the neighbors, and approval of the setback reduction would allow them to do that. He wanted to again thank the Board for taking this appeal and to remind them again, that all of the five criteria, every single one, must be met. They think it's clear that the building official fails on criteria one, two and four. Moore ends by asking the Board final questions; (1) is it reasonable to allow the largest house on one of the smallest lots; (2) is it impractical to build a more reasonably sized house on this site; (3) is a three-story house compatible with this neighborhood of one- and two-story houses; (4) would you want your neighbor to build a 35 foot high three-story wall five feet from your property. James Larew (504 E. Bloomington Street) thanked the Board for being willing to take on these heavy tasks. He noted he and his wife own the property across the street, 100 feet away, and bought that property 30 years ago with the goal of making it appropriate for the neighborhood and restoring it. They were able to repair it to make a wonderful law office, and they have apartments upstairs. The City on its own motion about two and a half years ago, without requesting in advance, designated his property as a historic landmark zone. Other people similarly chosen battled against it to get the City's decision overturned because it carries heavy burdens and probably depresses the market value. Larew stated that at the time, the City argued how important it was to keep the character of the neighborhood intact. The decision for a property only 100 feet away seems at the very least, to be a callous disregard for whatever values infuse this decision to tell them that their property should be designated as an historic landmark, and he doesn’t understand how the City’s right and left hand can be so completely unfamiliar with what the other is doing, but that has happened. Larew noted the reason he wrote another memo is because a lot has happened in Iowa law even between the official’s decision and the public hearing held in conjunction with it, and today’s meeting. The Iowa Supreme Court Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 10 of 27 has put to bed a question that has been asked now for about 20 years. For 60 years, in the decision called Deardorf, State of Iowa imposed a severe burden on anyone who wanted to have an area variance, that is to say, the use of a property was within the intended restrictions of the zoning area, but the area they wanted to use was more than what the law allowed. It is very seldom granted. Larew noted a school of thought in the last 20 years was adopted by some upper Midwest states, sometimes by Supreme Court ruling, sometimes by legislative action, that this standard was too burdensome, in fact, the word became impractical, it was impractical to apply strictly the zoning requirements on area restrictions in zoning. Larew acknowledged he is not the original scholar, he took those from a recent article written by former dean of the law school, Bill Hines, published in the Iowa Law Journal where he described this tension in the law that in some states, it seemed like it was too much to strictly enforce area designations and zones until this impracticality doctrine came there. Larew does not know the history of this zoning ordinance but believes there's some in the City that are predicting that Iowa law will change, so they created this local category called minor modifications which when it came to area are really the same thing as an area variance by another name. To lessen the burden, instead of it being an unnecessary hardship, which is what Iowa law requires, making use of the property almost valueless, an extraordinarily high burden which some people objected to, instead get to something called impractical. Larew noted as he reads this area of the Iowa Municipal Code, he thinks this was an effort, probably in good faith by well-intentioned progressive people, to make the Iowa City Code a little more amenable to those who wanted to have a use that didn't comply strictly with the Code and so they invented this area and only imposed upon the proponents of an exception for an area requirement something to prove it was impractical. Larew stated to the extent that question has been open for a number of years the Supreme Court has it slammed it shut and it came up in a case that arose in Clear Lake, Iowa, where a party with two houses next to each other, each of them fronting Clear Lake, beautiful properties, one built a side porch and when the porch was finished it encroached on the nine-foot side yard setback, and after they built it the neighbors complained and everyone said will be impractical to turn tear off that porch it's already been built. It passed to the city official who let it go over the objection of the neighbor, they went to the County Board of Adjustment and they said it would be impractical to make them tear it off, they appealed it to the District Court, who approved it, to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which approved it, to the Iowa Supreme Court who reversed the decision, noting their decision of 60 years ago, Deardorf, is still Iowa Law and it's not the mere claim of impracticality that should allow one person to ignore, even with the city's permission, the strict side yard setback requirements. What the Iowa Supreme Court said just six weeks ago cannot be done, but it is what Iowa City and the building officials are asking this Board to do, to do something that's unlawful. Larew thinks it's as simple as that, they cannot call something a minor modification, but in fact it is an area variance, by another name, and the issue will be resolved in a higher court if it's not resolved here. Larew made it clear he doesn’t give legal advice to the Board, he was before this Board a couple years ago with a different group, and at that time they had a different custom, and he is grateful that it has been changed, that the City Attorney could not be the one to advise this Board, as the whole question was whether a City employee had violated the law. This Board at the very least is entitled to an independent legal judgement as to whether or not the ordinance itself is unlawful, not even necessarily at the time that building official made that decision, but it is now clearly their decision as to whether to allow this. Larew noted others who have presented, and who have given their own descriptions, can identify why it doesn't even meet the test of impractical, but that's not even the test here, the test here is unnecessary hardship and if ever there was an example of where a proposed building project shouldn’t be approved because to do otherwise would create an unnecessary hardship. In this is the case there's all kinds of Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 11 of 27 beneficial uses that could be made of this property. Now that the owner benefiting from a zoning designation, which has been carved out for reasons he doesn’t understand, the carve up looks like a gerrymandered political district in upstate New York, how could this one lot have its own special designation that doesn't fit with the neighborhood, how a building they used to have a residential home on could be allowed to be demolished and for two years, allowed for informal parking and storage building materials is unknown, but the last thing it needs is one more exceptional treatment, one that is contrary to the Iowa Constitution Home Rule Authority, contrary to the statutes which empower city boards of adjustment to exist and one that's contrary to common law and the most recent one being the early decision of six weeks ago by the Iowa Supreme Court. Thank you for your patience. Linda McGuire wanted to address the Board’s question about the height requirement because the submitted appeal document addresses why three stories and the setback minor modification requests are connected, so it's clear that the decision should not be to build this building with the setback they’re requesting. They either have to grant the setback or not for this particular building and the scale of the building is connected to the minor modification request, in that the minor modification has to reflect the intent and purpose of setback purposes, one of which is to reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the neighborhood and be compatible with buildings in the vicinity. McGuire acknowledged the Board may not have the power to address the height of a building or the zoning, however the setback requirement is tied to the building fitting in the neighborhood which the Board needs to consider. The fact that they are wanting to have a three-story building and need a setback modification to do that is part of what the Board needs to decide. McGuire pointed out that in the submitted appeal documents, the points she is making are two, three and four of the appeal document. Dorothy Fowles (310 North Gilbert Street) co-owns the house at the other end of the alley on the south side. First, she thanked the Board for serving, acknowledging it is an important volunteer citizen position and at times it's a difficult one, this is especially true in this case when they are being asked to reverse the decision of a City employee. Fowles noted she served on the Board of Adjustment for five years and chaired it for one year, and they were also put in the unpleasant position of reversing a staff decision, but it was and still is the duty of the Board to consider appeals when there is a disagreement about the administrative decision made by the City, as in the case today. In this case, the Board is being asked to recognize that the lot area standards control the intensity of uses on a lot to ensure consistency and compatibility of new buildings with surrounding development. The presenters of the appeal have made a compelling case that this three-story building, with the reduced setback, is not consistent or compatible with the surrounding development and that it is not a request for a minor modification. In addition, the regulations are “intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings, provide options for light, air and privacy.” From personal experience, and as a designer, Fowles has concern about the impact of rainwater and snow on the adjacent property to the north. They own a well-maintained charming farmhouse as a rental property on South Van Buren and a developer built a nine unit apartment structure to the north and a little uphill. The building was too close to the lot line for its size and as a result dumped a large quantity of water and snow on her property and the basement. They didn't have the finances or time to fight a wealthy developer and reluctantly sold the property. The design of the proposed three-story house at 319 threatens to create a similar problem for the homeowner to the north, imagine heavy rain from the north hitting and running down that three-story wall flooding the adjacent property, or a snowdrift caused by the three-story wall in a heavy snowstorm. Fowles also read from the letter from Ann Freerks because it is pertinent to what they're talking Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 12 of 27 about. She writes “I served as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner for the City of Iowa City for over a dozen years, several as the chairperson. I was on the Commission when we carefully researched and wrote the current Zoning Code that was adapted by the City Council and the Commission spent many months working with our City planning staff to draft a Zoning Code that would help preserve existing neighborhoods as well as guide development, a new neighborhood so they create an attractive cohesive and sustainable living environment for years to come. When we drafted the minor modification sections, we wrote it to allow minor adjustments to zoning rules so property owners would not have to go before the Board of Adjustments for relatively small projects, the key word here is minor. The intent was to allow for small additions to a building where unique circumstances made it impossible to comply with setback standards and only if the minor modification met the intent of the zoning rules and did not cause harm to its neighbors and structures of the neighborhood as a whole over time. I want to be very clear to say that we never intended for the minor modification process to allow a three-story house in the neighborhood of one- and two-story houses, this is not minor. The Zoning Code makes it clear that the City should strive for consistency and treat similar properties similarly. The minor modification process was not intended to grant special privileges to some property owners at the expense of their neighbors. It is important to note that the Code also makes it clear that the intensity of development is based on lot size, according to the standards applicable in each zoning district. As such the lot should be developed at an intensity allowed by the lot area, height limits and setback requirements. The smallest lot should not have the largest building. For many years, I put a great deal of energy into making sure that the decisions that the Planning and Zoning Commission made were wise and just, there are a few mistakes, and I am reminded of these as a walk or drive around town. However, overall, the work has created an incredible vibrant community. I urge you to overturn this so that we don't see the impact of this decision start to crop up throughout the community. The minor modification which you have been asked to review in no way meets this intent and the criteria that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council established for approval. It should be overturned quickly and not be allowed to create a precedent which will cause damage, not just to this neighborhood but in all Iowa City neighborhoods. “ Don Fowles (310 North Gilbert Street) noted Pretorius asked Moore if they had any issues other than this technical one about the setback, as the Board of Adjustments had nothing else to say about the building. Fowles hopes it's been clear that these issues raised about the impact on other people, consistency with the neighborhood, not dominating the neighborhood, all is part of the Code and so those aspects with need to be cleared by this Board, it's not just the setback. Pretorius agreed but noted she is not clear, as a home builder, that even if this decision by the building department was overruled, they could still to her understanding build a three-story house if it was three feet narrower on the lot. Lehmann reiterated they need a five-foot setback for the first two stories, to add a third story they need a seven-foot setback, and so the minor modification reduced the seven-foot setback by two feet on one side and one foot on the other. Pretorius asked if they shrunk the footprint down to 21 feet wide, they would be able to build a three-story house. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Don Fowles noted there would still be section 14-2A-4B which says that the building standards Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 13 of 27 with their regulations are intended to promote a reasonable building scale and relationship between buildings and provide options for light, air and privacy and discourage buildings that visually dominate other buildings in the vicinity. It goes on to say that it should provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings, reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City’s neighborhoods, promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences. Fowles noted they have heard a lot of testimony that this is not particularly compatible, or not at all compatible, with the rest of the neighborhood. Fowles stressed that is part of the Code that they should address, they shouldn't just say well okay if they make it seven feet, we don't have anything to do with it, they're still violating these things. Pretorius asked staff if the Board is allowed to appeal anything other than that decision by the city to allow the setbacks to be modified. Lientz stated this is an appeal of a decision by the building official, the proceedings here are to determine whether the decision of the building official was in error. The decisions of the building official were set out earlier in the staff presentation and materials before the Board and the question for the Board is does the decision by the building official satisfy the criteria of the minor modification, this is not a variance request, it's a minor modification. There's the proponent and then the opposition will say what criteria they think are within the Code that are appropriate. The decision here of the Board is going to be based upon whether a decision of the building official was in error when applying those criteria. Lehmann stated they need to look at the criteria as if they're making that decision, similar to as would occur with a special exception, where they have criteria and have to decide if they are met or not. Fowles is talking about the intent of the setback standards as they the Board may find them tied into the minor modification criteria. Chrischilles stated if the Board is only supposed to deal with the five criteria for the minor modification, but since this is dealing with a request to reduce setbacks, how does section 14- 2A-4B fit into this, which outlines the intentions for the minimum setback requirements for principal buildings. Moore also referred to that in his presentation. Lientz stated the criteria are listed in section 14-4B-1B, and there is a component of B4 that the modification request is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation. In this case, the regulation modified would be the setback standards. Those are decisions that the Board is going to have to make based off the evidence and testimony that is being presented here tonight and is in the meeting packet. It is the burden of the Board to articulate the reasons why, or why not, a decision was or wasn't in error. Chrischilles asked if they can apply section 14-2A-4B in their decision-making. Lientz replied that they should apply the approval criteria with respect to the building official’s decision, this is a minor modification, and the criteria listed there. If the Board believes that the other criteria from other parts of the Code inform those criteria, then articulate that in the decision. Don Fowles noted that Prestige Properties bought the substandard lot knowing what they were buying, they are seasoned real estate investors, it's odd for them to then claim hardship that they have a substandard lot and need to be build a big house for it to be up to modern standards. They knew what they were buying, they shouldn't have to have a variance for that. Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 14 of 27 Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) stated she lives in the area and is concerned about variances like this being granted because she thinks the neighborhood needs to have its integrity kept and it's disconcerting that things like this will likely happen again if this variance is granted and she really hopes that it doesn't take place. Mike Oliveira (Prestige Properties, 329 E. Court Street – Unit 2) wanted to thank the Board of Adjustment for allowing them to be here tonight, they took the position internally with their attorneys and with the doctors who commissioned this house at 319 North Van Buren, they're both doctors in the Quad Cities and know the area of Van Buren Street very well, they lived there when they went to college. They are astutely watching this as they pick the design of a house that they wanted. Oliveira has heard a lot of issues with this house but it's a small lot and they looked at many designs and because of the setbacks, the new rules that Iowa City has with green space requirements and things like that, to meet the demands the client would like to have in their house, they came up with this design. Oliveira noted a lot of people complain about their intentions, which are not valid points for this decision, they stand by the City's original decision of decreasing the setback for a building that would add revenue to the City coffers and enhance a neighborhood. That lot has been vacant for a couple years, the previous house was in disrepair when they bought it, they rented it out for a period of time and then decided it was non-salvageable and, quite frankly, when it sold in foreclosure, it sat there for a long while, and none of the neighbors took on the responsibility of buying the lot except for him. Oliveira noted he lives one block from here in a house that is the same height as the proposed house and there's houses along the street a block away that are the same height. He doesn’t believe a lot of the arguments brought up are relevant to the decision, he understands that moving forward may get some more pushback, but the bottom line is this house was made to accommodate the buyers’ needs, what they wanted to see, and he believes they are in their rights to build a type of house that will actually add to the neighborhood. He noted there is an apartment building right across the street, when you look out the house there's an alley to the south and these people are going to be investing a lot of money in a house that they want to keep for a long time. Oliveira is hoping that the Board will take a look at what the City arguments are and reduce the noise about other issues, they can work through a lot in time, but they need to have a plan and the plan right now is for them to move forward on building a house on a small lot to meet the proposed builders requirements. Pretorius asked if the Board approves the appeal and the builder has to shave three feet off the house, would they still build the house. Oliveira responded probably not, they've shrunk the size down already and it's a pretty narrow house and it's difficult and doesn't make a good living situation for their size of family. They have three kids and themselves, so there's five people going to be in that house, so it's a challenge. Andy Litton stated he didn’t want to rehash things that have already been said but he is not opposed to the property being developed, it is just his opinion that a conforming building could be built on that site without special treatment, following the current setback requirements, and in his opinion the proposed house is too large for the lot and they know that because it doesn't meet the current zoning setbacks. Cox asked for clarification around standards regarding privacy and light because those would be met through observation of other dimensional standards. Sitzman stated the other Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 15 of 27 dimensional standards are the basics of the Zoning Code that are not being modified so overall height and lot coverage and other things would continue to apply. The incremental change here is the amount of feet requested to the change the setback and staff views the incremental change for the setbacks as being minor. All other regulations that this property would be subject to will continue to be enforced. Cox asked if they are talking about the scale of a building, maximum height being 35 feet, so are they considering what that 35 feet looks like when they consider scale and because when he looked through this neighborhood, a majority of the properties have a peaked roof line. Is any part of their deliberation here because this will be 35 feet of straight up all the way around? To him that seems like a scale question. Lehmann said it is up to the Board to decide. What the Board is looking at is the decision Sitzman made as the building official which is one determination, and the Board needs to decide if they agree with that or not. The Board is being asked to review this as a quasi-judicial board to make that determination. After the Board, it is up to the courts to decide who have the same regulations and the same written standards that the Board does to make a decision. Lehmann reiterated, as the Board, they can affirm, they can overturn, they can partially affirm and also could put in conditions if that is something that the Board is interested in. Carlson noted according to section 14-2A-4B, the minimum step back requirements for principal buildings, it says the stepback requirements are intended to reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City’s neighborhoods and promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences. Carlson stated she is having problems trying to understand how this building meets those two requirements. Cox asked who created the recording time lapse video, he did not catch who created that or if it was sourced. Dave Moore stated that came from a professional architect who has a laser device that measures the heights of buildings and the heights of proposed buildings as well. Carlson asked again about the Code statement of general building scale and placement of structures in the City’s neighborhoods to promote a reasonable physical relationship between the buildings. How does this building, as it is right now as allowed by City staff, how would that meet these two things. Sitzman stated that in considering the modification, she looked at the surrounding neighborhood and the base zoning and to what extent things are allowed to be changed by a minor modification. As far as the context of the neighborhood, she looked at the nature of the homes in that area. She looked at setbacks and base requirements are five feet for two stories, seven feet for three stories and the minor modification allows them to go down to a minimum of three feet for two stories, so in the context of whether the request was in the scale of possibilities, what was in the neighborhood was the basis for her analysis. Dave Moore stated he listened to this discussion in response to the building official’s statement that other dimension standards make this okay, but a three-story house is going to cast more of a shadow on 323 than a two-story house, so the other dimensional standards will not help. Additionally, Olivera stated he will not build a two-story if he does not get the minor modification. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 16 of 27 Pretorius asked for a motion so the Board could open discussion. Chrischilles moved for approval of APL21-0001, an appeal of a decision by the Building Official to grant a minor modification (MOD20-0009) reducing the side setbacks to build a new single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street: alleging an error in the determination that all applicable approval criteria were met. Carlson seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated as often is the case they are forced to base their approval or denial on certain aspects in this case it was stated at the beginning it has to be based on errors or misinterpretations of a building official or actions that are arbitrary or capricious in their decision to grant the minor modifications. His opinion is that there were errors or misinterpretations of the building official based on several things. He thinks Dave Moore gave a good presentation and his allegation of the fact that one, two and four had errors in them was valid. They only need to have one to prove his point and Chrischilles would say number one is an issue because the builders are creating the impracticality by building a house that is too large for that particular lot and then asking the City to modify the rules, which they are allowed to do, but they're asking them to modify the rules to meet their needs and there is no hardship here, the hardship was created by them. Chrischilles stated the setbacks were created for a reason and it has been stated by several the reasons for having setbacks in the first place. The intentions are not being met so Chrischilles believes that they should deny the minor modification. Pretorius stated during the presentation at one point some properties were brought up as examples and one area was the Peninsula neighborhood which is where she lives and built houses, so she knows what the City setbacks are here which is five f eet and on occasion they are four feet. Various houses that were shown on the presentation are maxing out those setbacks and are only five feet from the lot line. Additionally, there's a mix of houses in this community as well that are ranging from 1200 square foot ranches to 5000 square foot homes right next door to each other and the Peninsula was actually meant to replicate downtown Iowa City in some ways. Therefore, when she thinks about what the City granted with this minor modification, simply the setbacks going from seven feet to five feet on one side and to six f eet on another, she believes that the seven-foot setback is excessive. However, when she asked the builder if the future owners of the property would still build if the Board allowed the appeal, he said no they probably wouldn't. There's still a chance that he and the homeowner are going to go home and think about this tonight and decide they’re fine with the 21-foot wide house, and from what she has heard tonight, if they decided to do that, the City cannot stop the building of a three-story modern house, and there will still be unhappy people and she feels like what they're trying to do is to stop the building of this particular house, specifically the three-story aspect of it but it doesn't seem like there is the ability to do that. They can go home tonight and come back building a 21-foot-wide house that is three stories. So all the Board is doing at this point is shrinking the size of the house. Pretorius noted as a builder she knows how complicated that is so, she just wants to make sure that they’re doing this for the right reasons. Chrischilles stated they cannot base their opinion on what they may or may not do, all they can base their opinion on is if they believe what is going on at the current time is right or wrong. He stated if they deny the minor modification, the builder has an opportunity to still build a three- Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 17 of 27 story house anyway but that's not what they’re here to decide, they cannot foretell, all they can do is vote on what is in front of them and whether they think the current minor modification is right or wrong, and if an error has been made or it's been misinterpreted in some way. Pretorius doesn’t disagree with Chrischilles, she simply doesn’t see how the setbacks themselves are affecting the neighborhood. A house being built a little bit closer to another house or a little closer on the other side is in fact what they're supposed to be judging right now. Chrischilles stated that's the reason for setbacks in the first place, if there weren't any setbacks, one could build houses abutting each other so there's reasons for standards and they have to decide whether those standards are reasonable and whether they should be enforced or not. Pretorius acknowledged 400 houses in the Peninsula within blocks of her that all built within five feet of the property line and that was the point she was trying to make. Carlson asked how tall those houses are on the Peninsula, are they 35 feet tall. Pretorius stated most are in fact 35 foot tall, they have very high pitches on their houses. Carlson asked what the setbacks between those buildings are. Pretorius noted in some cases four feet from the lot line. Cox stated he appreciates Pretorius’s example and loves City history and architecture which is part of why he enjoyed being on this Board. He did state however in the Peninsula those were all built over a short period of time and when he drives through the Peninsula, nothing jumps out in the way that this proposal does in the way in which it relates to the rest of the surrounding properties so he thinks that criterion two is valid and there are implications for privacy, light and the general enjoyment of the properties around this as its proposed, and he doesn’t think that was adequately considered. He sees implications here that haven’t been adequately addressed, and it stems from the scale with the setbacks they are being asked to provide. Chrischilles agrees that when the City took a look at this, they were more concerned about whether or not the boxes were getting checked and not necessarily thinking about the other ramifications of that house being built there and agrees with Cox that it will result in less privacy and is it a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and does it reflect the general building scale and placement of structures, etc. Pretorius again stated hypothetically she took her thoughts in the opposite direction that they could in fact continue to build this exact house, just three foot narrower, and then all those things would still happen. Is it the setbacks that are creating all the issues, or is it just the house itself that is the problem. Chrischilles stated they won’t know that until they build if they build a three-foot narrower house there, tonight they must decide what is before them, not what possibilities may happen. Carlson agreed they need to look at what is directly in front of them tonight, and whether they feel that is appropriate for that lot in that neighborhood. Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 18 of 27 Pretorius stated then she doesn’t see an issue with allowing a house to be wider, especially since it's not exceeding the five-foot setback, which is still considered safe regarding fire code and whatnot, so she thinks the five-foot setback which has been granted is more than adequate. Carlson agreed if the only concern is for fire and to have enough space between the houses for fire protection, then yes, but there should be other considerations taken into account such as the general building scale and the placement of the buildings, those things are important. The Board next discussed the findings of facts. Lehmann reminded them as they are going through the findings, they can adopt all of staff's findings, or they can adopt their own findings for each criterion as they see fit. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item APL21-0001 he does not concur with the findings in the staff report, because he concludes that the first standard was not met based on the fact that the condition of impracticality was created by the owner and therefore the City should not have approved that as one of the conditions of the minor modification. Carlson seconded those findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3 (Chrischilles, Carlson, Cox) to 2 (Parker, Pretorius). The appeal is sustained, the minor modification is overturned. Pretorius stated the motion is declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office. Lientz noted his involvement is completed and Dulek from the City Attorney's office will take over for the rest of the agenda items. Cox also left the meeting and Hazell rejoined the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0002: An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting a special exception to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for a multi-family redevelopment project at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street. Pretorius opened the public hearing. Lehmann stated this exception is being submitted by Axiom Consultants on the behalf of Gilbane Development for a parking reduction of 50% for multifamily development at 700 South Dubuque Street (the primary address but it includes a couple others on South Dubuque Street and also on Lafayette Street). Lehmann showed an aerial of the site and noted it includes a couple different parcels and buildings that are proposed to be redeveloped. There is an alley in the middle of the buildings and it's a mix of uses around the properties, public uses to the south and to the west, residential multifamily uses to the west and north, some commercial uses to the east and some light industrial uses. However, the site is all zoned Riverfront Crossings - Central Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 19 of 27 Crossings. Lehmann showed some photos to give context to the site. He also pointed out the change in elevation across the site, as well as its location with respect to Ralston Creek. For background, Lehmann reiterated this is a request for a 50% parking reduction to redevelop the site. It was recently rezoned from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings (RFC-CX) on February 2 and the rezoning came with two sets of conditions. The first is improvements to Ralston Creek, including removal of invasive trees, stream bank stabilization, tree planting, and sidewalk and pedestrian improvements, all to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy. The second is dedicating a sanitary sewer easement through the site. The applicant has also requested a vacation of the alley between S. Dubuque and Lafayette Street (VAC20-0003) but Planning & Zoning does not have that on their agenda yet, they'll hear that once a final conveyance price is agreed upon. The standards the Board is looking at are tied to minimum off street parking which are intended to ensure onsite parking accommodates most parking demand and prevents spillover parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Lehmann noted Central Crossings district is intended for moderate intensity mixed use development with entries opening onto pedestrian friendly public streets and streetscapes. This district is split by the railroad tracks, north of the railroad one can request a fee in lieu of parking, but this property is just south of the railroad and doesn’t have that option. Therefore, they're requesting the parking reduction through the unique circumstances provision in the Code which specifically states that if there are unique characteristics such that the number of parking spaces is excessive, it can be reduced by up to 50%, or up to 100% for historic properties which is not being considered in this case. Lehmann explained the proposed project is to redevelop the site as a six-story multifamily building with approximately 250 dwelling units or 501 bedrooms. There will be around 47 studio and one-bedroom apartments, 155 two-bedroom apartments and 48 three-bedroom apartments. This would require 387 parking spaces by Code, so a 50% reduction request would only require 193 spaces onsite. The application indicates they would have 203 spaces onsite. Approval of this exception would allow redevelopment of the property as currently proposed. Lehmann next showed the site plan and pointed out a few features, most of the site will be covered with the building, and there are two pedestrian exits onto South Dubuque Street and one onto Lafayette Street, there is also some on-street parking that would be provided as part of the revised streetscape they're proposing on their site plan. The exit from their parking is being proposed partially below grade at roughly the location of the alley is now. The Board’s responsibility tonight is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the facts presented. To approve they must find that all applicable standards are met, which includes specific standards pertaining to the waiver requested and general standards for all special exceptions. For this special exception, the specific standards are at 14-5A-4F Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances where it states if a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking spaces is excessive, then the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception of up to 50% reduction in parking. For staff’s findings regarding that criterion, Gilbane has requested the use based on unique characteristics, so they can allow up to a 50% parking reduction. The specific use they're proposing is housing for University of Iowa students with Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 20 of 27 student-specific features such as individual leases, furnished units, on-site study lounges, things tied specifically to students. Students exhibit a lower demand for onsite parking and are more likely to utilize other modes of transportation, such as transit, walking and biking. Lehmann explained some of the evidence is tied to downtown residents in Iowa City, where they tend to use cars less due to the proximity to the University, employment and other services. Data was provided from the 2019 5-year American Community Survey, specifically table B08301 for census tracts 16, 17 and 21 (which are near downtown). Generally 52% of people in those tracts drive to work as a typical commute, 7% carpool, 34% walk and 4% use public transit. The remainder either use other modes of transportation or work from home. Tract 21, the closest to downtown, has the lowest levels of car usage, as only 27% of folks there drive alone to work. Lehmann showed a map of the Census Tracts noting tract 21 is basically the heart of downtown and includes a lot of university and student housing. Tract 16 is also housing typically occupied by students but is a little west of downtown. It includes the long blocks on South Van Buren, Johnson, and Dodge Streets which contains a lot of student housing. Tract 17 is where this property is actually located, right on the north border. Tract 17 tends to have higher numbers of folks who drive alone, but it encompasses the entirety of the area south of the railroad tracks and north of Highway 6 which includes less student housing. The applicant primarily used tracts 16 and 21 in their application as their comparable tracts, but staff analysis used all three of them. The applicant also provided some comparative properties and staff look ed at some additional surrounding properties. The proposed project includes 0.81 underground parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 0.41 per bed. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) uses a demand rate of 0.9 vehicles per unit or 0.48 per bed for multifamily dense multi-use urban housing. Lehmann noted that is not specific to student housing, though, so it gives some indication of downtown housing generally but isn't specific to the specific use of student housing that is being discussed here. The applicant also points to The Rise which is a student housing project on East Court Street, they use 0.6 spaces per unit or 0.34 per bed. Staff is not aware of any complaints about spillover parking from there. Staff also looked at some adjacent properties that have been redeveloped under the form-based code. 628 South Dubuque Street to the north has 0.55 parking spaces per unit and 225 East Prentiss Street has 1.25 parking spaces per unit. Lehmann acknowledged those surrounding properties have a wider variance, but overall staff believes the unique characteristic does suggest that the required parking is excessive here. Regarding the seven general criteria at 14-4B-3, the first is if it will be detrimental to health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the public. Staff finds that parking ratios are similar to other projects downtown and seem appropriate based on downtown census data for mode of transportation to work. Parking ratios are below the suggested ratios by the ITE but the student market is more likely to use alternative modes of transportation than they would anticipate in their parking ratios. Generally, staff doesn't anticipate that spillover parking will impact on-street parking in neighboring residential areas, most nearby streets are either metered or they do not allow on-street parking, especially in residential areas. There is on-street parking along Lafayette Street but generally serves the commercial uses and the proposed project provides some new public parking spaces along South Dubuque Street. The Johnson County parking ramp to the southwest can serve some of those adjacent uses as well and there is also the Harrison Street public parking ramp, which is to the north maybe a block and a half with 550 spaces. Staff believes that could accommodate downtown visitors or commuters. However, it wouldn't help parking for residents in the proposed building because regular parking permits in public ramps are typically not available to downtown residents. Staff also believes that, assuming the target market is accurate and regular travel is not conducted by car, some parking demand might be satisfied by the University's remote parking lots, as mentioned by the Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 21 of 27 applicant. Similar to some other recent projects, tenants are going to have to consider their reduced onsite parking in their decision making and staff believes that the proposed project will attract tenants who have a preference for less onsite parking or that don't require as much. So overall staff believes that the public parking reduction wouldn’t be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The second general criterion is that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of surrounding properties and will substantially diminish or impair property values. Regarding parking impacts, staff finds that many properties nearby, especially those owned by the University and County to the west and the southwest have more than adequate parking so those won't be negatively impacted by the proposal. Other nearby residential properties, as noted earlier, vary in their parking supply and typically cater to the same market, so staff doesn't anticipate issues, especially as there are no single-family residential uses nearby, which is really the concern regarding spillover parking. Additionally, the Harrison Street ramp provides off - street parking for customers and visitors and the project provides some on-street parking. Staff also believes that the project will increase nearby pedestrian traffic that might improve commercial viability of some nearby businesses. The project also includes improvements to Ralston Creek which will increase the attractiveness of the area, especially for properties to the east. Therefore, staff believes the parking reduction will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity nor will affect property values negatively. The third criterion is that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and ordinary development and improvements of surrounding properties. Lehmann noted the area is already developed, there’s been recent redevelopment nearby, especially to the north and west, and that's only increased the demand for additional improvements in Riverfront Crossings. Staff noted the proposal may cause temporary closures of streets as part of construction but doesn't create any long-term impacts for the development of surrounding properties, so staff doesn't believe that the proposed reduction would impede normal development. The fourth criterion is related to adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and infrastructure of the existing streets that are provided to the site. Lehmann noted the existing streets seem to be adequate for vehicular and pedestrian access and pedestrian access would be supplemented by amenities along Ralston Creek. As far as other factors lik e utilities, drainage, and necessary facilities, those generally get covered under site plan review and building permit processes, so staff believes that all those will be met at that time. Criterion five states that adequate measures have or will be taken to provide ingress or egress to minimize traffic congestion on public streets for vehicular access to the site. Lehmann noted most access will occur at the parking entrance that is at grade on Lafayette Street near where the alley is located. As a result, staff recommends that the alley vacation be a condition of approval for this parking reduction. Lafayette Street also intersects South Dubuque Street with a stop sign and Ralston Creek blocks access to the west. Staff believes that is adequate at this time. In terms of other vehicular access points, there are several on South Dubuque Street and Lafayette Street that will be consolidated to the south side of the site along Lafayette Street. In terms of pedestrian access, there will be multiple points of pedestrian access on South Dubuque Street and one on Lafayette as well as new public parking in the South Dubuque Street right-of-way. Staff has recommended that they be metered to assist with turnover and provide parking for surrounding properties. Lehmann explained staff is not recommending that Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 22 of 27 as a condition of approval for this special exception because it is being covered through other planning processes. Therefore, staff has found that adequate measures are being taken to minimize traffic congestion, based on these findings. The sixth criterion is that the special exception otherwise abides by all applicable criteria as Lehmann noted earlier, staff has other processes such as design review, site plan review and building permit review where they check these things so staff believes those will be met or reviewed at that time in more detail. Currently staff doesn't see concerns with what is on the site plan. The applicant is also requesting an administrative height bonus, so those policies will have to be followed as part of the process. The final criteria is if the special exception is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann explained for this area, the Comprehensive Plan shows mixed use. This would be a residential use, but it is still a mix of uses throughout the area. Additionally, the proposal fulfills the goal to identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure already place. The Plan also talks about encouraging pedestrian oriented development, making it safe, convenient and comfortable to walk and this redevelopment would do that. In the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Plan, which is more specifically applicable, the Central Crossings District talks about promoting new housing options and restoring and enhancing the conditions along Ralston Creek. Lehmann stated staff didn’t receive any written correspondence regarding this but noted they had a phone call regarding the application from a nearby property owner who wasn't sure the parking reduction was sufficiently justified and suggested that the number of units be reduced or that there be other mitigation measures to offset parking. The person declined to provide a written comment and were comfortable providing verbal comments. Lehmann didn’t feel comfortable going into any more detail about the caller’s thoughts. Staff recommends approval of EXC21-0002, to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for the properties located at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street, subject to the following condition: 1. City Council approval of VAC20-0003. Chrischilles noted at the beginning, Lehmann stated to request a reduction in parking, the applicant had to demonstrate special characteristics. W hat were those special characteristics that they brought forth. Lehmann replied they noted the purpose was for housing for University of Iowa students. The verbiage is that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking spaces required is excessive. The specific use they're pointing to is purpose- built housing for University of Iowa students. Chrischilles asked how much on-street parking is going to be created on Dubuque Street and how many businesses are still there in the surrounding area that would benefit from additional parking on the street. Parker replied not many, there is a law office, a bike store with a dance studio in back. Lehmann added there is a building across the street that appears to be light industrial which is making improvements, they look like they currently use on-street parking. Chrischilles asked if this property goes through, will the additional on-street parking definitely Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 23 of 27 happen or is that just a possibility. Lehmann replied the application is currently under design review so the amount of on-street parking is unknown at this time but their site plans shows 18 stalls. Lehmann believes it will probably be less than that, but that's under design review right now and being worked out. Hazell noted staff mentioned they're looking at a reduction to 203 parking spots, is that just in the underground parking or does that include the on-street parking. Lehmann confirmed the public parking spaces do not count towards their onsite parking, and on-street public parking was omitted from staff recommendations because it will be decided during site review. Carlson asked about the metered parking on the street, and if Lehmann knew what the time limit will be, short-term parking or a longer-term parking or has that been decided at this point. Lehmann can't speak to that. Carlson noted if they are going to provide 203 parking spaces in the underground parking that is only a reduction of 48% so why does the staff report recommend a reduction of 50%. If the Board approves it a 50% reduction, they can further reduce the number of parking spaces underground. Lehmann said if there was a 50% parking reduction, they must have 193 spaces and are proposing 203. Staff recommends a reduction of 50% because there has been a couple versions of the application as they change unit mixes and none of that is set in stone until they finalize their project, so 50% is approximately what would accommodate the use. Usually staff would recommend aiming slightly above in case there are slight changes in the future. However, if the Board wants to do exactly 48 percent or whatever the exact amount would be for 203, that would be their decision as they decide on the special exception. Chrischilles asked if there has been any requests for financial assistance from the City on this project. Lehmann replied he is not aware of any. Parker asked about the Ralston Creek pedestrian improvements and would there be a tunnel going through the rail bridge as part of it or is it just the sidewalk. Lehmann stated that is not part of the project. Parker assumes that's the right-of-way of the railroad which Lehmann confirmed. Parker asked where the nearest bus stop to the project is. Lehmann is not sure exactly but most of downtown is within pretty close distance of a bus stop. He primarily look at census tract information which shows pretty good bus ridership downtown, although walking and biking are more popular modes of transportation. Lehmann pulled up the applicant’s appendix B which showed the project area and the nearby bus routes and walking routes. The project area is about a block and a half from the bus stop. Parker noted they have to walk away from downtown to the nearest stop so he doubts ridership would be popular. Lehmann agreed and imagined it would be more walkers and bikers based on census data. When he was onsite, he saw people walking which appeared to be the most apparent mode choice. Carlson asked if there will there be a cost for parking at the building, has that been established yet or how much will it be. Lehmann believes that the applicant can discuss that. Parker noted most downtown residential rentals are usually around $200 per month to park a car. Carlson noted in the applicant’s report they say it’s $150 at The Rise but is that per month, then. Lehmann noted the applicants are nodding yes. Hazell asked about the Ralston Creek improvements and noticed they're not in the staff Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 24 of 27 recommendations as a requirement and is that because it's being required by other processes. Lehmann confirmed those are in the conditional zoning agreement from when they rezoned to Riverfront Crossings. Carlson asked how they go about determining who rents the parking spaces, is it a first come, first serve situation. Lehmann noted the applicant can answer that question and other similar details about the project. Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) first wanted to thank the Board for not deferring this item and keeping it on the agenda tonight appreciating it’s been a long meeting. He will try to answer the questions that have been raised and talk a little about the project. On the parking reduction percentage of the 48 versus 50%, when they were talking with staff and looking at the project, they are not sure what is the final parking count that will happen for underground parking. As they go through the design, the structural design comes later which may move a column or adjust things and that impact a parking space, so that's why they're requesting a 50% reduction in the application and not 48 because there's some potential for changes through the next six months of designing. Regarding the pedestrian access on Ralston Creek and the tunnel through the railroad, their direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff is to provide a means for future connection, similar to the 225 East Prentiss project that was constructed a few years ago. They built trail going south to the road, then perhaps a future City project would make that actual connection between the two, so this is an opportunity to get that pedestrian access put in place and ready if that future project ever comes to fruition. Welch discussed the bus routes, noting the South Cambus route just northwest a block. The prediction is in nice weather people will walk but on a rainy or cold day, ridership on Cambus probably will jump like it does all across campus when looking at student usage and transportation modes. Regarding the use case for unique circumstances, they looked at the distance to walk downtown from this location compared to other sites on campus and around town and they felt it's compelling that one, the front door is at the northwest corner of the property which is on Dubuque Street and the railroad, meaning they’re starting off at the top of the hill, not the bottom when they use that and head downtown, and two, the walking distances are comparable to the residence halls on the west side of campus coming downtown with a 12 to 15 minute walk depending on where they are going on campus and downtown. To answer the question of on-street parking, they are in the process of going through design review with City staff for the height bonus. They got comments last week that staff is recommending on-street parking be parallel parking rather than angled parking to preserve some of the green space that's there and actually increase it since they're getting rid of driveways that come out on the street now and will be replaced by a more typical parkway between the curb and the sidewalk, and then as part of that street trees will be required as part of the landscaping plan. Michael Apt (Gilbane Development) also thanked the Board for not deferring the case as time is of the essence. He acknowledged this is student housing but Iowa City doesn't have a lot pedestrian-only student housing, The Rise is probably the only one, this would be the second one and he believes Capstone was also recently approved. Apt explained student housing is different than the multifamily market rate type housing a lot of students and others live in where they use a car to get to campus and to downtown. This project location enables them to walk or ride their bikes if they prefer, the Cambus is just a few blocks north of the property and will provide access to residents all around campus. Students who bring a car to campus often park it and don't use it for sometimes weeks at a time. There are University long-term parking for Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 25 of 27 students where they park their car and take the Cambus back to their residences, so that is also an option for students. Apt also wanted to note Gilbane has done similar projects in the Midwest. In Ames they have three and one has parking of 0.4 per bed, another is 0.13 per bed and the third is 1.34 and they have less than 5% parking vacancy in the buildings. At the University of Illinois in Champaign they have parking at 0.34 per bed but are 30% vacant. One is at the University of Colorado Springs where their zoning made them have one parking space per bed and those are 60% vacant. All the Gilbane projects are walkable to the University. Apt wanted to note additionally the Iowa City Climate Action Plan stresses less parking and more walkability, the need to be pedestrian friendly and use more public transportation. Lastly Apt noted they have some other constraints on the site which play a role, they are going to stay within the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan for the site, which is a six story building, they don’t really want to go up to eight stories. The ask for additional floors is because when looking at having the parking underground from the top of Dubuque Street all the way down to Lafayette, they need to make sure the water table from Ralston Creek doesn’t prevent them from going an additional story below ground but if it does they may end up doing one story underground and a half a story above ground of parking that they believe is adequate for this facility. Regarding the question of what they will charge for parking, whether it'll be in the rent or an extra fee, The Rise charges $150 per space per month, they are not sure what their rate will be yet, but it will be in agreement with what the market is now. The spaces all will be on a first come, first serve but he is not sure that they're going to be able to fill all the parking spaces with what is going on right now in the other locations they've done student housing. They believe the reduction and providing between 193 and 203 parking spaces is more than sufficient for a student housing project like this so close to the University and the downtown. Apt confirmed they are not asking for any financial assistance from the City to do this project. Hazell asked for confirmation that the vacancy rates that Apt listed are vacancies for parking and not units. Apt confirmed that was just on parking, they wouldn’t be in business if those were unit vacancies. A typically student housing like this adjacent to the University is 100% every semester, during COVID some of them took a little bit of hit but they're going to bounce back. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Parker moved for approval of EXC21-0002, an application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Gilbane Development, requesting a special exception to reduce the minimum parking requirement by 50 percent for a multi-family redevelopment project at 700, 710, 720, & 730 S. Dubuque Street and 206 & 220 Lafayette Street. Hazell seconded the motion. Parker stated regarding agenda item EXC21-0002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, April 14, 2021 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied as amended by staff during the presentation unless amended or opposed by another board member. He recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal. seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision Board of Adjustment April 14, 2021 Page 26 of 27 to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC21-0003 & EXC21-0004: An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy- Vee #3 located at 1125 N. Dodge Street. An application submitted by LT Leon Associates for a special exception to allow drive-through facilities in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for online grocery pick-up at Iowa City Hy- Vee #1 located at 1720 Waterfront Drive. Chrischilles moved to defer these two items indefinitely. Hazell seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office. CONSIDER THE MARCH 10, 2020 MINUTES: Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of March 10, 2021. Parker seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-1-0 (Carlson abstained due to not being present). ADJOURNMENT: Hazell moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020 NAME TERM EXP. 1/8 2/12 4/8 5/13 5/27 6/10 7/15 10/14 11/18 12/8 3/10 4/11 CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X 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 X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 0/E X 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 X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member Item Number: 8. April 22, 2021 Library Board of Tru stees: March 25 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description L ibrary B oard of Trustees: March 25 Item Number: 9. April 22, 2021 Library Board of Tru stees: Ap ril 1 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description L ibrary B oard of Trustees: April 1 Item Number: 10. April 22, 2021 Sen ior Cen ter Commission: Ap ril 15 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Senior Center Commission: April 15