HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-28 Info Packet � r
City Council Information Packet
CITY OF IOwA CITY April 28, 2023
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
May 2 Work Session
IP2. Work Session Agenda
IP3. Pending City Council Work Session Topics
Miscellaneous
IP4. Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for
period ending March 31 , 2023
IPS. Joint Entities Meeting: April 17
IP6. Civil Service Examination: Housing Choice Voucher Program Coordinator
IP7. Civil Service Examination: Mechanic II - Transit
Draft Minutes
IP8. Board of Adjustment: April 12
IP9. Board of Adjustment: April 19
IP10. Library Board of Trustees: March 23
April 28, 2023 City of Iowa City
Item Number: IP1.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Attachments: Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
CITY IOWA CITY April 27, 2023
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, May 2,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, May 16,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,June 6,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,June 20,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,July 11,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Monday,July 17,2023 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBD
Hosted by Johnson County
Tuesday,August 1,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,August 15,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,September 5,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,September 19,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday,October 3,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Monday,October 16,2023 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting TBD
Hosted by Iowa City Community Sch Dist
Tuesday,October 17,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Monday, November 6,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, November 21,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Tuesday, December 12,2023 4:00 PM Work Session City Hall, Emma J. Harvat Hall
6:00 PM Formal Meeting 410 E.Washington Street
Item Number: IP2.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Work Session Agenda
Attachments: Work Session Agenda
Subject to change as finalized by the City Clerk. For a final official copy, contact the
City Clerk's Office 356-5041
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this
program/event, please contact Kellie Fruehling at 319-356-5041, kellie-
fruehling@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient
time to meet your access needs.
Iowa City
City Council - Work Session r
Agenda
Work Session
May 2, 2023 - 4:00 PM CITY OF IOWA CITY
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
www.icgov.org
City of Iowa City Land Acknowledgment can be found at:
icgov.org/land acknowledgement
Meeting Rules can be found at: icgov.org/meeting rules
You can watch the meeting on cable channel 4 (118.2 QAM) in Iowa City, University
Heights and Coralville, or you can watch it online at any of the following websites:
• https://citychannel4.com/live
• https://www.youtube.com/user/citvchannel4/live
• https://facebook.com/CitvoflowaCity
1. Lead private water service line replacement presentation
2. Clarification of Agenda Items
3. Information Packet Discussion [April 20, April 28]
4. University of Iowa Student Government (USG) Updates
5. Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Item Number: IP3.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Pending City Council Work Session Topics
Attachments: Pending City Council Work Session Topics
r ,
: Ill ra
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
April 27, 2023
FY23-24 Strategic Plan Action Item Topics Requiring Council Discussion:
• Explore legal steps to discourage or prevent bad faith and predatory property investors
• Initiate a Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent Zoning Code review to more broadly incorporate form-based
principles with emphasis on growth areas first and infill areas next,expanded missing middle housing allowances,
minimum density requirements, and streamlined approval processes(Suggested Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning
Commission)
• Advance prioritized recommendations in the 2022 Affordable Housing Action Plan.Work with partners to undertake
significant-scale affordable housing efforts
• Fully evaluate the feasibility and funding sources needed for a zero-fare transit system
• Develop a vision statement for a singular regional transit system with metro Johnson County entities and obtain initial
commitments to study a regional system from each entity's elected officials
• Explore opportunities to utilize the CRANDIC right-of-way for passenger rail,bus rapid transit,or pedestrian usage
• Evaluate with the State of Iowa reverting Dodge and Governor to 2-way streets
• Utilizing American Rescue Act Funds,execute on agreeable recommendations in the Inclusive Economic Development
Plan with a particular focus on actions that build long-term support and wealth-building opportunities for systemically
marginalized populations
• Work collaboratively with Johnson County and other stakeholders to launch a community violence intervention effort in
close cooperation with local law enforcement
Other Tonics:
• Quarterly American Rescue Plan Act(ABPA-SLRF)update
• Consider a strategic plan decision-making framework
• Develop strategies to address equity gaps noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of
destination parks within an easy and safe distance of all residents.
• Review of the 2020 Preliminary Plan to Accelerate Community Policing
Note:Some items on the Pending List may require staff research and information gathering prior to Scheduling.
Item Number: IP4.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for period ending
March 31 , 2023
Attachments: Memo from Budget Management Analyst: Quarterly Financial Summary for
period ending March 31 , 2023
.� CITY OF IOWA CITY
WINZ
-'° '0 MEMORANDUM
Date: April 26, 2023
To: City Manager, City Council
From: Angie Ogden, Budget Management Analyst
Re: Quarterly Financial Summary for Period Ending March 31, 2023
Introduction
Attached to this memorandum are the City's quarterly financial reports as of March 31, 2023. The
quarterly financial report includes combined summaries of all fund balances, revenues, and
expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023 through the end of the third quarter, which is 75% of the way
through the fiscal year. The March quarterly report also incorporates the budget amendments
that were approved during the Fiscal Year 2024 budget process. Some of the highlights of the
City's financial activity are discussed below.
Revenue Analysis
This revenue analysis pertains to the revenue reports, Revenues by Fund and Revenues by Type,
on pages 4-6. In these two reports, the actual revenues would ideally be near 75% of budget
since we have completed three-fourths of the fiscal year; however, due to accruals and timing
differences, many of these percentages may be above or below 75%.
Funds with budget anomalies on page 4 worth noting; the CDBG Fund and Home Fund revenues
are at 34.7%and 19.2%, respectively.Additionally,the Other Shared Revenue Fund is at 140.6%
of budget. These funds' revenues are primarily due to the timing of the grant and federal awards
activity as well as the increase in interest allocation.
The Transit fund has revenues at 31.2% due to the timing of receipt for the federal
operating grant. Finally, the Governmental Projects fund has revenues at only 21.7% of budget
due to the timing of the Bond issuance. This fund should come up closer to budget after the
bond sale this spring.
On page 5, a few examples of revenues that are below the 75%mark include property tax revenue
which is at 60.7°1% of budget and reflects the timing of the property tax receipts. The second half
property taxes are due in April and should increase this percentage substantially. Other revenues
affected by the timing of property tax receipts include TIF Revenues which are at 54.8% and
Property Tax Credits which are at 49.8% of budget.
Under Charges for Fees & Services, Building & Development fees are at 110.3% of budget.
Building & Development fees includes construction from last summer and fall and is a good
indicator of the amount of construction activity underway. Police Services is at 121.4% of budget.
This is due to timing of when police forfeiture and abandonments take place.
In addition, under Intergovernmental on page 5, Operating Grants are at 115.0% and Local 28E
Agreements are at 49.7% of budget. Library reimbursements came in higher than expected as
well as the timing of receipts of grants.
Finally, on page 6, Interest Revenues are 308.8%. Again, due to the increase in interest
allocations. Under Other Financing Sources, Debt Sales revenue is at 0% of budget. We
are currently
i
preparing to sell the general obligation bonds which will bring this revenue source up to 100% of
budget.
As of March 31, the combined total actual revenue for all budgetary funds is $133,527,262 or
61.9% of budget. Overall, the City's revenues are not substantially different than projected, and
the anomalies and budget variances can be explained.
Expenditure Analysis
This expenditure analysis pertains to the expenditure reports, Expenditures by Fund and
Expenditures by Fund by Department on pages 7-9. The analysis of the City's expenditures for
Fiscal Year 2023 through March is similar to the analysis for the City's revenues. We generally
expect the actual expenditure levels to be around 75% of budget at this time of year.
Some funds have expenditure activity through the third quarter that differs significantly from the
75% mark. The following funds have a significant expenditure variance above or below 75%:
• CDBG Fund and HOME Fund expenditures are at 45.4% and 25.4%, respectively, due to
the timing of the payout of loans and grants to applicants.
• Other Shared Revenue Fund expenditures are at 11.6% of budget primarily because of
American Rescue Plan Act funds budgeted but not yet spent.
• Iowa City Property Management Fund expenditures are at 37.1%of budget resulting from
lower R&M cost as well as timing of the property tax payment.
• Debt Service Fund expenditures are at 7.9%, because the general obligation bond
principal payments are not due until June 1.
• Housing Authority expenditures are at 91.0% of budget due to increased landlord rents
and utility reimbursements.
• Governmental Projects expenditures are at 26.8% and Enterprise Projects expenditures
are at 17.4% because many of the capital projects are scheduled for construction this
spring.
Overall, the combined total actual expenditures for all budgetary funds through March are
$137,109,938 or 34.9% of budget. The City's expenditures through the third quarter have a few
major anomalies; however, these can be readily explained.
Conclusion
Generally,there are no major concerns to report with the City's fund balances at the end of March.
The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Fund,and HOME Fund is presented (on page
3)with negative fund balance at-$100,574 and-$70,688. This negative fund balances should be
reversed following the next receipt of CDBGtHOME funds. The other fund balances appear to be
near expectations. Additional information is available from the Finance Department upon request.
2
City of Iowa City
Fund Summary
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
Beginning Ending Restricted, Unassigned
Fund Year-to-Date Transfers Year-to-Date Transfers Fund Committed, Fund
Balance Revenues In Expenditures Out Balance Assigned Balance
Budgetary Funds
General Fund
10'" General Fund $ 56,735,242 $ 39,066,010 $ 9,765,820 $ 44,703,801 $ 4,218,225 $ 56,645,046 $ 21,246,054 $ 35,398,992
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant (14,936) 458,191 - 540,829 3,000 (100,574) - (10%574)
2110 HOME 112,966 667,814 - 851,467 - (70,688) (70,688)
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 5,087,054 6,706,823 484,143 5,369,019 1,711,122 5,197,879 - 5,197,679
2300 Other Shared Revenue 16,363,059 423,796 2,662 1,937,508 - 14,852,008 - 14,852,008
2350 Metro Planning Org or J.C. 534,206 225,115 301,457 554,492 - 506,286 - 506,286
2400 Employee Benefits 4,130,695 9,095,673 - 1,090,142 10,085,234 2,050,992 - 2,050,992
2450 Emergency Levy Fund 1,205,796 523,723 - 308,768 175,000 1,245,752 - 1,245,752
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 5,281,899 109,712 750,000 884,573 - 5,257,038 - 5,257,038
2510 Peninsula Apartments 233,030 204,195 - 91,647 - 345,578 - 345,578
26" Tax Increment Financing 811,156 2,288,826 - 1,057,710 - 2,042,271 - 2,042,271
2820 SSMID-Downtown District 294,224 - 264,711 - 29,513 - 29,513
Debt Service Fund
5"' Debt Service 7,116,621 6,945,876 - 1,039,310 13,023,188 - 13,023,188
Enterprise Funds
710'Parking 1,893,211 4,054,847 500,000 2,847,988 1,029,787 2,570,282 553,702 2,016,580
715'Mass Transit 10,389,250 2,193,570 3,079,633 5,373,494 60,000 10,228,958 6,733,676 1,495,283
720'Wastewater 25,314,538 8,671,499 1,751,691 8,538,062 2,184,076 25,015,590 9,708,711 15,306,879
730'Water 13,440,452 8,052,925 2,264,198 7,051,844 2,156,298 14,549,433 6,895,407 7,654,026
7400 Refuse Collection 1,374,200 3,177,843 4,954 2,962,098 - 1,594,899 - 1,594,899
750'Landfill 26,541,740 5,686,841 1,121,912 3,938,328 700,211 26,711,953 25,332,521 3,37%432
7600 Airport 325,446 318,321 75,000 321,927 - 396,840 211,299 185,541
7700 Storm Water 1,062,799 1,213,467 585,934 427,101 1,070,D00 1,365,099 329,000 1,036,099
79" Housing Authority 6,225,607 9,092,179 - 9,605,026 41,093 5,671,666 1,324,334 4,347,332
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 32,D70,726 4,415,775 1,700,626 15,396,264 35,000 22,755,883 - 22,755,863
Enterprise Projects 14,155,857 706,338 1,081,017 5,826,319 10,115,894 - 10,116,094
Total Budgetary Funds $ 230,390,613 $ 114,593,581 $23,469,047 $ 120,982,427 $23,469,047 $224,001,767 $ 74,334,703 $149,667,064
Nen-Bv�d� Funds
Internal Service Funds
810-Equipment $ 20,149,842 $ 6,052,166 $ $ 4,888,573 It - $ 21,313,435 $ 18,334,493 $ 2,978,941
8200 Risk Management 4,058,071 1,272,230 - 969,359 - 4,360,942 - 4,360,942
830`Information Technology 3,967,708 1,633,304 2,033,583 - 3,567,429 1,633,242 1,934,187
8400 Central Services 814,625 189,079 - 143,351 - 860,353 - 860,353
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 14,435,853 9,454,139 - 7,802,919 1%087,074 8,123,615 7,963,459
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 469,246 332,763 - 28%726 - 512,283 - 512,283
Total Non-Budgetary Funds $ 43,895,345 $ 18,933,681 $ - $ 16,127,511 $ - $ 46,701,515 $ 28,091,350 $ 18,610,165
Total All Funds 5 274,285,958 S 133,527,262 $23,469,047 $ 137,109,938 $23,469,047 $270,703,282 $ 102,426,053 $168,277,229
3
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31,2023
2022 2023 2023
Actual Budget 2023 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Fund Revenues
General Fund
10** General Fund $ 59,720,297 $ 58,519,087 $ 60,451,398 S 39,066,010 $ (21,385,388) 64.6%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant 765,231 857,874 1,320,700 458,191 (662,509) 34.7%
2110 HOME 290,694 664,164 3,474,825 667,814 (2,607,011) 19.2%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 10,091,246 9,531,340 9,531,340 6,706,823 (2,624,517) 70.4%
2300 Other Shared Revenue 9,958,207 - 301,320 423,796 122,476 140.6%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co 464,833 392,528 392,528 225,115 (167,413) 57.4%
2400 Employee Benefits 14,891,999 14,822,685 14,822,685 9,095,673 (5,727,012) 61.4%
2450 Emergency Levy Fund 1,042,546 867,503 867,503 523,723 (343,780) 60.4%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 3,076,974 - - 109,712 109,712 0.0%
2510 love City Property Management 243,332 239,323 253,123 204,195 (58,928) 77.6%
26** Tax Increment Financing 4,061,053 4,113,733 4,113,733 2,288,826 (1,624,907) 55.6%
28205SMID-Downtown District 467,815 556,031 556,031 294,224 (261,807) 52.9%
Debt Service Fund
5*` Debt Service 11,22%149 11,136,858 11,136,858 6,945,876 (4,190,982) 62.4%
Enterprise Funds
710*Parking 3,033,675 5,867,389 5,667,389 4,054,847 (1,812,542) 69.1%
715*Mass Transit 10,305,009 5,091,857 7,029,554 2,193,570 (4,835,985) 31.2%
720*Wastewater 9,677,752 12,411,110 12,411,110 8,671,499 (3,739,611) 69.9%
730'Water 9,498,280 10,926,637 10,933,086 8,052,925 (2,880,161) 73.7%
7400 Refuse Collection 3,992,002 4,474,772 4,474,772 3,177,843 (1,296,929) 71.0%
750*Landfill 6,847,413 7,222,531 7,262,531 5,686,841 (1,575,690) 78.3%
7600 Airport 367,012 385,410 395,410 318,321 (77,089) 80.5%
7700 Stone Water 97,676 1,715,290 1,715,290 1,213,467 (501,623) 70.7%
79** Housing Authority 12,097,434 10,905,608 10,905,608 9,092,179 (1,813,429) 83.4%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 16,093,861 13,160,000 20,392,073 4,415,775 (15,976,298) 21.7%
Enterprise Projects 9,642,453 18,028,525 1,609,254 706,338 (1,102,916) 39.0%
Total Budgetary Revenues $197,976,145 $191,830,255 $190,428,121 $ 114,593,581 $ (75,834,540) 60.2%
Non-Budoetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds
810*Equipment $ 7,585,052 6 8,101,268 $ 8,305,268 $ 6,052,166 $ (2,253,102) 72.9%
8200 Risk Management 1,272,674 1,080,610 1,080,61D 1,272,230 191,620 117.7%
830*Information Technology 3,142,692 3,035,343 3,035,343 1,633,304 (1,402,039) 53.8%
8400 Central Services 236,594 208,803 208,803 189,079 (19,724) 90.6%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 11,465,512 12,135,173 12,135,173 9,454,139 (2,681,034) 77.9%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 402,133 396,689 396,689 332,763 (63,926) 83.9%
Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 24,104,658 $ 24,957,886 $ 25,161,886 $ 18,933,681 $ (6,228,205) 75.2%
Total Revenues-All Funds $222,060,803 $216,788,141 $215,590,007 $133,527,262 $ (82,062,745) 61.9%
4
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
2022 2023 2023
Actual Budget 2023 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Fludoetary Fund Revenues
Property Taxes $ 66,604,726 $ 66,474,472 $ 66,474,472 $ 40,350,696 $ (26,123,776) 60.7%
Other City Taxes:
TIF Revenues 4,016,096 4,113,733 4,113,733 2,254,094 (1,859,639) 54.8%
Gas/Electric Excise Taxes 684,491 688,134 688,134 409,377 (278,757) 59.5%
Mobile Home Taxes 56,796 62,999 62,999 39,521 (23,478) 62.7%
HotellMotel Taxes 1,708,182 1,134,662 1,134,862 1,132.980 (1,882) 99.8%
Utility Franchise Tax 1,148,998 993,850 993,850 597.485 (396.365). 60.1%
Subtotal 7,614,563 6,993,578 6,993,578 4,433,456 (2,560,122) 63.4%
Licenses,Permits,&Fees:
General Use Permits 101,740 65,920 65,920 55,439 (10,481) 84.1%
Food&Liquor Licenses 181,740 94,510 94,510 72,255 (22,255) 76.5%
Professional License 2,755 3,760 3,760 1,730 (2,030) 46.0%
Franchise Fees 540,221 582,920 582,920 263,528 (319,392) 45.2%
Construction Permits&Insp Fees 1,899,487 1,783,010 1,783,010 1,410,474 (372,536) 79.1%
Misc Lic&Permits 72,071 62,930 62,930 43,369 (19,661) 68.9%
Subtotal 2,798,014 2,593,050 2,593,050 1,846,795 (746,255) 71.2%
Intergovernmental:
Fed Intergovernmental Revenue 34,765,406 16,572,899 27,854,023 10,978,015 (16,876,008) 39.4%
Property Tax Credits 1,554,618 1,249,633 1,249,633 621,847 (627,766) 49.8%
Road Use Tax 9,900,316 9,390,000 9,390,000 6,583,173 (2,806,827) 70.1%
State 28E Agreements 2,093,406 2,512,490 2,452,760 2,200,799 (251,961) 89.7%
Operating Grants 56,765 61,850 61,850 71,122 9,272 115.0%
Disaster Assistance 57,835 - - 2,069 2,069 a0%
Other State Grants 1,951,997 1,216,505 3,996,405 1,503,668 (2,492,737) 37.6%
Local 28E Agreements 1,399.853 1,344,189 2,150,698 1,068,013 (1,082,685) 49.7%
Subtotal 51,782,195 32,347,546 47,155,369 23,028,706 (24,126,663) 48.8%
Charges For Fees And Services:
Building&Development 4,128,695 455,270 455,270 502,184 46,914 110.3%
Police Services 51,726 75,000 75,000 91,034 16,034 121.4%
Animal Care Services 19,403 11,740 11,740 8,941 (2,799) 76.2%
Fire Services 11,820 11,070 11,070 6,900 (4,170) 62.3%
Transit Fees 919,435 1,409,590 1,012,890 770,958 (241,932) 76.1%
Culture&Recreation 571,135 705,255 705,255 442,635 (262,620) 62.8%
Misc Charges For Services 66,099 62,202 62,302 45,637 (16,466) 73.6%
Water Charges 10,128,971 9,991,670 9,991,670 7,140,910 (2,850,760) 71.5%
Wastewater Charges 12,117,702 12,152,450 12,152,450 8,307,281 (3,845,169) 68.4%
Refuse Charges 4,580,213 4,910,372 4,910,272 3,592,200 (1,318,072) 73.2%
Landfill Charges 6,663,449 6,446,175 6,498,175 4,640,974 (1,857,201) 71.4%
Storm Water Charges 1,704,329 1,700,790 1,700,790 1,192,436 (508,352) 70.1%
Parking Charges 5,382,494 6,343,069 6,343,059 4,246,502 (2,096,557) 66.9%
Subtotal 46,345,472 44,276,643 43,929,943 30,988,792 (12,941,151) 70.5%
Miscellaneous:
Code Enforcement 124,454 289,130 289,130 108,161 (180,970) 37.4%
Parking Fines 673,707 490,D00 490,ODO 339,531 (150,469) 69.3%
Library Fines&Fees 2,941 - 1,153 1,153 #DIV101
Contnbutions&Donations 357,339 360,810 660,333 460,471 (199,862) 69.7%
Printed Materials 23,060 22,DOO 22,000 12,932 (9,068) 58.8%
Animal Adoption 57,840 45,000 45,000 49,309 4,309 109.6%
Misc Merchandise 21,637 36,310 26,310 18,344 (7,966) 69.7%
Intra-City Charges 5,639,376 6,016,011 6,016,011 4,522,280 (1,493,731) 75.2%
Other Misc Revenue 1,622,189 748,854 948,854 1,361,122 412,268 143.4%
Special Assessments 1,381 1,000 1,000 B42 (158) 84.2%
Subtotal $ 8,523,922 $ 8,009,115 $ 8,498,638 $ 6,874,145 $ (1,624,493) 80.9%
5
City of Iowa City
Revenues by Type
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
2022 2023 2023
Actual Budget 2023 Revised Actual Variance Percent
Use Of Money And Property:
Interest Revenues $ 838,095 $ 1,134,991 $ 1,234,991 $ 3,813,711 $ 2,578,720 308.8%
Rents 1,429,834 1,463,605 1,497,405 1,114,887 (382,518) 74.5%
Royalties&Commissions 147,441 146,592 139,012 70,449 (68,563) 50.7%
Subtotal 2,415,370 2,745,188 2,871,408 4,999,047 2,127,639 174.1%
Other Financial Sources:
Debt Sales 10,790,326 27,756,000 9,330,000 - (9,330,000) 0.0%
Sale Of Assets 413,157 328,168 2,275,168 1,750,517 (524,651) 76.9%
Loans 688,401 306,495 306,495 321.427 14,932 104.9%
Subtotal 11,891,883 28,390,663 11,911,663 2,071,944 (9,839,719) 17.4%
Total Budgetary Revenues $197,976,145 $ 191,830,255 $ 190,428,121 $114,593,581 (75,834,540) 60.2%
Non-Budgetary Fund Revenues
Internal Service Funds $ 24,104,658 $ 24,957,886 $ 25,161,886 $ 18,933,681 $ (6,228,205) 75.2%
Total Non-Budgetary Revenues $ 24,104,658 $ 24,957,886 $ 25,161,886 $ 18,933,681 $ (6,228,205) 75.2%
Total Revenues-All Funds $222,080,803 $ 216,788,141 $ 215,590,007 $133,527,262 $ (82,062,745) 51.9%
6
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
2022 2023 2023 2023
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budgetary Fund Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund $ 60,833,635 $ 64,980,913 $172,389,977 $ 44,703,801 $127,686,176 25.9%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Black Grant 706,002 805,974 1,190,352 540,829 649,523 45.4%
2110 HOME 182,162 475,170 3,345,831 851,467 2,494,364 25.4%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund 6,647,987 7,279,259 7,301,260 5,369,019 1,932,241 73.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue 1,732,345 - 16,631,419 1,937,508 14,693,911 11.6%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co. 759,804 845,692 845,692 554,492 291,200 65.6%
2400 Employee Benefits 1,302,276 1,394,767 1,394,767 1,090,142 304,625 78.2%
245D Emergency Levy Fund 280,977 518,692 546,171 308,766 237,405 56.5%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund 873,449 1,000,000 1,000,000 884,573 115,427 88-5%
2510 lows City Property Management 204,873 223,656 246,976 91,647 155,329 37.1%
26'° Tax Increment Financing 3,051,238 2,285,191 3,129,893 1,057,710 2,072,183 33.8%
2820 SSMID-Downtown District 467,815 556,031 556,031 264,711 291,320 47.6%
Debt Service Fund
5"" Debt Service 13,185,763 12,952,813 13,171,641 1,039,310 12,132,331 7.9%
Enterprise Funds
710`Parking 4,138,165 4,097,573 4,119,574 2,847,988 1,271,586 69.1%
715`Mass Transit 12,558,148 6,490,957 8,583,516 5,373,494 3,210,022 62.6%
720*Wastewater 9,911,472 9,975,902 10,999,912 8,538,062 2,461,850 77.6%
730*Water 9,144,432 9,408,244 9,585,694 7,051,844 2,533,850 73.6%
7400 Refuse Collection 4,001,720 4,600,648 4,600,849 2,962,098 1,638,751 64.4%
750'Landfill 5,495,623 5,763,431 5,728,959 3,938,328 1,790,631 68.7%
7600 Airport 425,107 385,060 393,219 321,927 71,292 81.9%
7700 Storm Water 561,273 662,768 682,769 427,101 255,666 62.6%
79" Housing Authority 11,745,588 10,5DD,330 10,550,447 9,605,026 945,421 91.0%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 19,678,277 19,765,470 57,520,948 15,396,264 42,124,684 26.8%
Enterprise Projects 7,241,237 27,590,750 33,518,461 5,826,319 27,692,142 17.4%
Total Budgetary Expenditures $175,129,366 $ 194,599,491 $368,034,358 $ 120,982,427 $247,051,931 329%
Non-Budgetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810"Equipment $ 4,639,406 $ 6,119,417 $ 8,132,324 $ 4,888,573 $ 3,243,751 60.1%
8200 Risk Management 1,528,964 1,236,062 1,236,062 969,359 266,703 78.4%
830•Information Technology 2,645,068 2,591,813 2,828,831 2,033,583 795,248 71.9%
8400 Central Services 220,080 211,967 227,273 143,351 83,922 63.1%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves 9,339,230 12,123,673 12,123,673 7,802,919 4,320,754 64.4%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves 356,454 382,521 382,521 269,726 92,795 75.7%
Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 18,729,201 $ 22,665,473 $ 24,930,684 $ 16,127,511 $ 8,803,173 64.7%
Total Expenditures-All Funds $193,858,567 $ 217,264,964 $392,965,042 $ 137,109,938 $255,855,104 34.9%
7
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
2022 2023 2023 2023
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Budoetary Funds Expenditures
General Fund
10" General Fund
City Council $ 158,711 $ 168,774 $ 168,774 $ 133,695 $ 35,079 79.2%
City Clerk 560,078 632,229 625,117 400,415 224,702 64.1%
City Attorney 850,566 868,194 868,194 646,412 221,782 74.5%
City Manager 4,213,343 4,654,388 6,323,119 3,210,027 3,113,092 50.8%
Finance 4,075,617 5,028,909 23,459,241 3,273,291 20,185,950 14.0%
Police 14,867,148 16,391,387 16,847,333 11,144,856 5,702,477 66.2%
Fire 9,112,628 9,587,713 9,677,794 6,791,382 2,886,412 70.2%
Parks&Recreation 9,670,667 10,433,377 10,893,158 6,901,677 3,991,481 63.4%
Library 6,934,581 7,325,426 7,358,906 5,175,669 2,183,237 70.3%
Senior Center 1,032,310 1,082,805 1,109,305 735,495 373,610 66.3%
Neighborhood&Development Services 5,858,970 4,915,066 39,511,357 3,593,403 35,917,954 9.1%
Public Works 2,845,050 3,200,355 42,099,799 2,191,776 39,906,D23 5.2%
Transportation&Resource Management 653,947 692,290 13,447,880 505,704 12,942.176 3.8%
Total General Fund 60,833,635 64,980,913 172,389,977 44,703,801 127,686,176 25.9%
Special Revenue Funds
2100 Community Dev Block Grant
Neighborhood&Development Services 706,002 805,974 1,190,352 540,829 649,523 45.4%
2110 HOME
Neighborhood&Development Services 182,162 475,170 3,345,831 851,467 2,494,364 25.4%
2200 Road Use Tax Fund
Public Works 6,647,987 7,279,259 7,301,260 5,369,019 1,932,241 73.5%
2300 Other Shared Revenue
Neighborhood&Development Services 1,732,345 - 16,631,419 1,937,508 14,693,911 11.6%
2350 Metro Planning Org of Johnson Co
Neighborhood&Development Services 759,804 845,692 845,692 554,492 291,200 65.6%
2400 Employee Benefits
Finance 1,302,276 1,394,767 1,394,767 1,090,142 304,625 78.2%
2450 Emergency Levy Fund
City Manager 280,977 518,692 546,171 308,766 237,405 56.5%
2500 Affordable Housing Fund
Neighborhood&Development Services 873,449 1,000,000 1,000,000 884,573 115,427 88.5%
2510 lovra City Property Management
Neighborhood&Development Services 204,873 223,656 246,976 91,647 155,329 37.1%
26^ Tax Increment Financing
Finance 3,051,238 2,285,191 3,129,893 1,057,710 2,072,183 33.8%
2820 SSMID-Dovmtovm District
Finance 467,815 556,031 556,031 264,711 291,320 47.6%
Total Special Revenue Funds 16,208,927 15,364,432 36,188,392 12,950,865 23,237,527 35.8%
Debt Service Fund
5..' Debt Service
Finance 13,185,763 12,952,813 13,171.641 1.039.310 12.132.331 7.9%
Total Debt Service Fund 13,185,763 12,952,813 13,171,641 1,039,310 12,132,331 7.9%
8
City of Iowa City
Expenditures by Fund by Department
Fiscal Year 2023 through March 31, 2023
2022 2023 2023 2023
Actual Budget Revised Actual Variance Percent
Enterprise Funds
710*Parking
Transportation&Resource Management $ 4,138,165 $ 4,097,573 $ 4,119,574 $ 2,847,988 $ 1,271,586 69.1%
715*Mass Transit
Transportation&Resource Management 12,558,146 8,490,957 8,583,516 5,373,494 3,210,022 62.6%
720*Wastewater
Public Works 9,911,472 9,975,902 10,999,912 8,538,062 2,461,850 77.6%
730*Water
Public Works 9,144,432 9,408,244 9,585,694 7,051,844 2,533,850 73.6%
7400 Refuse Collection
Transportation&Resource Management 4,001,720 4,600,848 4,600,849 2,962,098 1,638,751 64.4%
750*Landfill
Transportation&Resource Management 5,495,623 5,783,431 5,728,959 3,938,328 1,790,631 68.7%
7600 Airport
Airport Operations 425,107 385,060 393,219 321,927 71,292 81.9%
7700 Storm Water
Public Works 561,273 682,768 682,769 427,101 255,668 62.6%
79** Housing Authority
Neighborhood&Development Services 11,745,586 10,500,330 10,550,447 9,605,026 945,421 91.0%
Total Enterprise Funds 57,981,527 53,925,113 56,244,939 41,065,869 14,179,070 74.3%
Capital Project Funds
Governmental Projects 19,678,277 19,765,470 57,520,948 15,396,264 42,124,684 26.8%
Enterprise Projects 7,241,237 27,590,750 33,518,461 5,826,319 27.692.142 17.4%
Total Capital Project Funds 26,919,514 47,356,220 91,039,409 21,222,583 69,816,826 23.3%
Total Budgetary Expenditures $175,129,366 $194,599,491 $368,034,358 $120,982,427 $247,051,931 32.9%
Non-Budcetary Funds Expenditures
Internal Service Funds
810*Equipment
Public Works $ 4,639,406 $ 6,119,417 $ 8,132,324 $ 4,888,573 $ 3,243,751 60.1%
8200 Risk Management
Finance 1,528,964 1,236,062 1,236,062 969,359 266,703 78.4%
830*Information Technology
Finance 2,645,066 2,591,813 2,826,831 2,033,583 795,248 71.9%
8400 Central Services
Finance 220,080 211,987 227,273 143,351 83,922 63.1%
8500 Health Insurance Reserves
Finance 9,339,230 12,123,673 12,123,673 7,802,919 4,320,754 64.4%
8600 Dental Insurance Reserves
Finance 356,454 382,521 382.521 289,728 92,795 75.7%
Total Internal Service Funds 18,729,201 22,665,473 24,930,684 16,127,511 8,803,173 64.7%
Total Non-Budgetary Expenditures $ 18,729,201 $ 22,665,473 $ 24,930,684 $ 16,127,511 $ 8,803,173 64.7%
Total Expenditures-All Funds $193,858,567 $217,264,964 $392,965,042 $137,109,938 $255,855,104 34.9%
9
Item Number: IP5.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Joint Entities Meeting: April 17
Attachments: Joint Entities Meeting: April 17
Joint Entities Meeting 4/17/2023
Minutes
Call to order
University Heights Mayor Louise From called the April 17, 2023 Joint Entities Meeting to order at the
Courtyard by Marriott University Heights Kinnick Room. Elected officials present: North Liberty— Mayor
Chris Hoffman and Councilors RaQuishia Harrington,; Coralville—Mayor Meghann Foster and Councilors
Laurie Goodrich, Hai Huynh, Keith Jones, Mike Knutson; Iowa City— Mayor Bruce Teague and Councilors
Laura Bergus,Andrew Dunn,Pauline Taylor;Johnson County Supervisors Rod Sullivan,V Fixmer-Oraiz,Lisa
Green-Douglass and Royceann Porter; Iowa City Community School District Board members Maka Pilcher
Hayek,J.P. Claussen and Molly Abraham; and University Heights Councilor Stepheny Gahn.
Others present: Sam Jannis, Rachel Zimmermann,Tracey Mulcahey, Ellen Habel, Ryan Heiar, Geoff Fruin,
and other interested parties.
Discussion of the Public health emergency unwind (Johnson County Public Health)
Sam Jarvis,Johnson County Public Health, introduced Kim Stupica-Dobbs, Regional Administrator,
Region 7 at Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Kansas City, Missouri, Ms. Dobbs shared
information about getting qualified Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP individuals re-enrolled for services.
Update on the Bus Rapid Transit RPP for the CRANDIC Corridor (City of Iowa City)
Iowa City Councilor Laura Bergus reported that a rapid transit bus survey would be conducted to allow
entities to compare the cost of rapid transit bus to light rail for the CRANDIC corridor.
Invitation to create an intergovernmental task force that addresses manufactured housing in
Johnson Countv (V Fixmer Oraiz& Andrew Dunn)
A sign-up sheet for a future meeting was circulated. V Fixmer Oraiz stressed that this task force would
further the work of the previous group addressing issues with manufactured housing parks.
Next meeting date time, and host
Mayor From announced a proposed schedule of next year's meetings with a suggested host. She
encouraged entities to contact each other, and trade assigned spots, if conflicts arise with the proposed
hosts.
2023
July 17 Johnson County
Oct. 16 ICCSD
2024
Jan. 15 Coralville
April 15 Iowa City
July 15 North Liberty
Oct. 21 University Heights
Adicurnment
At 5:25 p.m., Mayor From adjourned the meeting.
Mike Haverkamp, University Heights City Clerk
Item Number: IP6.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Civil Service Examination: Housing Choice Voucher Program Coordinator
Attachments: Civil Service Examination: Housing Choice Voucher Program Coordinator
• ww�'m�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
April 17, 2023
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination - Housing Choice Voucher Program
Coordinator
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Housing Choice
Voucher Program Coordinator.
Greg Schell
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Chi Ogboko
Item Number: IP7.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Civil Service Examination: Mechanic II - Transit
Attachments: Civil Service Examination: Mechanic II - Transit
� r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington 5treet
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www,icgov.o rg
April 24, 2023
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mechanic II — Transit
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mechanic II —Transit.
Ryan Weber
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick Wyss, Chair
Item Number: IP8.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Board of Adjustment: April 12
Attachments: Board of Adjustment: April 12
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
APRIL 12, 2023— 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Bryce Parker(via zoom), Mark
Russo, Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel [as a temporary alternate to
Larry Baker during the appeal]
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Grant Lientz [as independent legal
counsel during the appeal], Danielle Sitzman
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Boelk, Gregg Geerdes, Mark Holtkamp, David Moore,
Susan Shullaw
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Carlson outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
APPEAL ITEM APL23-0002:
An appeal submitted by David Moore to overturn a decision of the Building Official to extend a
building permit for a single-family home at 319 North Van Buren Street: alleging that the
proposed building does not meet setback and other requirements of City Code.
Carlson opened the public hearing.
Baker recused himself as he had prior correspondence and communication with the applicant.
Tim Weitzel is in attendance as a temporary alternate Board member as allowed by the
procedural rules of the Board of Adjustment.
Lehmann stated because it's an appeal of a decision by the building official, he is only acting in
the capacity of secretary of the Board, and the Board has an independent legal counsel tonight,
Grant Lientz of North Liberty.
In terms of background, Lehmann shared the aerial and the zoning maps and said Danielle
Sitzman, the building official that made the determination, is going to give the staff presentation.
Lehmann reiterated the subject property is 319 North Van Buren Street which is in the Northside
Neighborhood of Iowa City and is currently a vacant lot. The vacant lot is surrounded by
residential uses and the zoning is Single Family Neighborhood Stabilization (RNS-12) and that
is the same zoning for the lots to the west, north and east. Lehmann added that the lots to the
west and north also have a Conservation District Overlay (OCD)zone. The property to the
south, across the alley, is zoned CO-1 Commercial Office, due to proximity to Mercy Hospital.
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 2 of 19
Sitzman began the staff report reiterating this property is in the RNS-12 Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential zone and table 14-2A-2 of the zoning code includes land uses allowed
in this zone, which includes single family household uses. The proposed use for this building
permit is a household living use in a detached single-family dwelling, otherwise known as a
house. Sitzman showed the site plan for the submitted building permit, followed by the
elevations for the proposed dwelling from the south side and then from Van Buren Street or the
east elevation. It shows the lower story of the proposed building and that is considered the
ground floor and first floor of the building by the zoning code. The plans show an entry door to
be located on the building facade adjacent to North Van Buren Street, which is the primary
street frontage on the ground floor/first floor. The entry door opens under the ground floor/first
floor living space, which is connected to the rest of the habitable space of the dwelling. The
south facing entry door is the principal means of access to the single dwelling unit proposed for
this property. Sitzman noted there's a second door to be located on the building facade adjacent
to North Van Buren Street on the next story above the ground floor/first floor which is labeled
main level on the building plan set. That door is oriented east and accessed by a stairway.
Sitzman stated as far as the appeal goes, the staff memo and her final remarks are in response
to the relevant zoning code sections to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of
Adjustment hears appeals when there's an alleged error in an interpretation of the zoning code
or any zoning ordinance. Staffs understanding of the appeal from the appellant maintains that a
stairway extends into the front setback area in violation of the zoning code.
In response to the alleged violation, Sitzman stated the dimensional requirements for single
family residential zones are stated in table 2A-2 and described in more detail in subsections A
through E [of Section 14-2A-4], including things like lot requirements, setbacks, bulk standards
such as height and lot coverage, and open space standards. Subsection B is solely about
setbacks for principal buildings. Subsection B states that the minimum setbacks for principal
buildings create the required setback areas within which principal buildings are not allowed,
except for certain building features as specified. Subsection 4 contains specific building
features which are exempted from the prohibition of B or in other words are allowed to be in the
setback area. They're labeled as building features permitted within the required setback area
and it contains five subsections itself(a through e) each of which names the type of feature
permitted and lists any stipulations on those permissions. For example, (a) lists awnings,
uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses, canopies, chimneys, cornices, sills
and other similar features, and then further explains where and by how much they may or may
not extend; (b) lists enclosed porches, covered decks, covered patios and unenclosed and
screened in porches and then further explains where and by how much they may or may not
exceed those setbacks; (c) lists fire escapes, and then further explains where and by how much
they may or may not extend; (d) lists stairways and then further explains in what context they
may not extend and; (e) lists stoops and wheelchair ramps and then further explains in what
context they may be used, and where and by how much they may or may not extend. Sitzman
stated there's some symmetry in the section where in each of these sections a-e list the item
and then explain further where and by how much or in what context those may be allowed.
Sitzman next showed the setback area on the building plans for the detached single-family
dwelling with three stories. She stated the subject property qualifies for setback averaging,
which results in the minimum front setback area of 9.8 feet. The required front yard setback
area is the area between the street side lot line along North Van Buren Street and a line drawn
parallel to the street and west of it 9.8 feet from the street. Within this required front setback
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 3 of 19
area, principal buildings are not allowed except for the certain building features which she just
read contained in the code sections a-e. Subsection d specifically reads that"stairways that
function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above ground or first floor of
a building may not extend into any required setback". It lists stairways as an allowable building
feature in the required setback area and then further explains in what context they may not
extend and where. Staff's reading of the code based on the context of its structure is therefore
that if the stairway does not function as the principal means of access to dwelling units above
the ground floor/first floor, then it is not limited in location or encroachment in any other way.
Sitzman stated the stairway does access a level of the building above the ground floor/first floor
but is not the principal means of access to the building. The principal means of access to the
building is the south facing entry door on the building facade adjacent to North Van Buren
Street. Therefore, the stairway can extend without limit into the front yard setback area.
Swygard asked how they determined that the primary street frontage is the door that faces the
alley. Sitzman stated the staff memo includes a series of definitions out of the zoning code and
primary street frontage is one of those definitions. From the code, primary street frontage is "the
frontage of a lot to which the address is assigned". So, in this case, this lot is assigned an
address off North Van Buren Street making North Van Buren Street the primary street frontage
so the door on the face of the building is the principal means of access to the building. Swygard
noted the door faces south. Sitzman concurred there is a door in the middle of the facade that
orients to the south but it's on the facade of the building that faces east. So while the door may
orient south and opens out to the south, it's in the middle of the center of the facade facing east
which is the primary frontage of North Van Buren Street.
Swygard asked how the main entrance is described on a residential property. Sitzman stated
there is no definition of primary entrance in the code. Swygard stated in 14-9A, the code
defines the main entrance to a residential use. Sitzman noted she does not have the code in
front of her but that was not one she found in her research. Swygard noted it states the main
entrance to a residential use is "the primary entrance located on the exterior wall of the building
used by residents of a dwelling to gain access to their dwelling unit. Such an entrance is
typically located on the street facing wall of the dwelling and an entrance to a dwelling from a
parking garage is not a main entrance". Sitzman noted it sounds like they're describing the wall
facing Van Buren Street, which is the door on that facade of the building. Sitzman added that's
open for the Board to discuss what that part of the code means but staff interpreted in this
circumstance that the door on the main floor/ground floor is, although facing south, on the east
or primary facade.
Russo noted the fagade facing Van Buren is undisturbed, the door is on a wall intersecting the
facade. Sitzmann doesn't believe there's anything that says it has to be parallel to the street.
Carlson asked for the definition of a stoop. Sitzman stated there isn't a definition of a stoop in
the zoning code. Carlson wondered if ramps for wheelchairs have certain dimensions. Sitzman
stated they are described in a separate subsection from stairways.
Weitzel asked about egress requirements and what would this building need for egress for the
upper floors. Sitzman stated that's a building code question not a zoning code question.
Dave Moore (425 East Davenport Street) is the person who filed this appeal with a board, he
lived for 40 years at his house which is on the same block just around the corner from the
Board of Adjustment
ApHI12,2023
Page 4 of 19
subject property 319 North Van Buren. In 2021 Prestige Properties filed its first building permit
for this parcel and he was part of a group of neighbors who were concerned at that time that the
structure then envisioned for this very small and narrow lot was oversized and did not fit the
character of the neighborhood and the surrounding homes, or in fact, the code. Moore noted
they were successful in an appeal in 2021 to the Board of Adjustment back then and changes
were made to the original plans and the project was approved and allowed to move forward so
he's back in front of the Board today. Moore stated they believe the current plans were
approved in error, in particular they believe the stairway to the second story is the main floor
entrance to the home on Van Buren Street and is in violation of the City's Building Code
pertaining to setback requirements, and that the building permit should not have been issued.
Moore will have his attorney Mr. Geerdes talk in more detail about the code sections that they
believe are misinterpreted or followed in error but as a quick aside, a friend said to him a couple
of days ago that their neighborhood is like an old crazy quilt. And to draw an analogy between
the quilts and a neighborhood, what fits and what doesn't, is the way to figure out if something
fits, whether it's a quilt or a neighborhood, is a code. So thankfully, they have the code in this
situation to look to and as someone who's lived on that block for four decades and walks those
streets every day he feels obligated on behalf of his neighbors, as well as himself, to object
respectfully to the permit allowing this structure to be built as currently designed.
Susan Shullaw(718 North Johnson Street)wanted to share a brief presentation but first noted
they would like to suggest because the City's website has been down when trying to access the
Board of Adjustment agenda for much of the weekend into Monday and actually this afternoon,
that might warrant a hearing delay, because neighbors were not able to access that information
close to this hearing. On with the presentation, to put this in a little human context she shared
what the Northside looks like and a typical streetscape in the RNS-12 neighborhood taken right
around the corner from the subject property. She pointed out that the sightlines are pleasing and
the setbacks, which they also know as front yards, allow for pleasant views and in good form to
the City's code, which says they should conform for the general building scale and placement of
structures in the neighborhood. They think those front yards are important and they provide
sightlines that are not only safe but pleasant and allow people to interact and talk to one
another. Next looking at the proposed drawings and the south facing entrance. The building
and the door that was referenced, clearly is facing the alley, whatever wall it's on. She then
showed again the east and west faces of the first proposed building, with the entryway on that
stairway that cuts back and up to the second floor, which is the main dwelling unit of this of this
structure. Shullaw wanted to again call attention to the fact that what is referred to as the
principal entry that faces the alley is actually under and hidden by those stairs that are facing
Van Buren Street, which feels to them like the principal entry of the building. She also noted this
image highlights again how much further that stairway extends into the setback, which seems
pretty severe. Shullaw stated when this building was originally okayed back in February 2022 it
was done so when there was no entry door on the alley, but the stairs were there and it was
permitted at that time. She showed an image of the permit that was issued in February 2022.
She stated changes were made subsequently to add that door. She showed the floor plans
again noting where the door now is was originally a bedroom, it's an office now that the alley
door leads into it. She showed another image of the proposed building, looking at it as if one
were standing in the alley, looking north on Van Buren, noting what that stairway is going to look
like with the door that's inset and she noted how different that is from the streetscape that they
just saw along Davenport Street around the corner. Shullaw believes that this stairway will
obstruct sight lines for motorists and pedestrians and is a bit of a hazard besides just being
aesthetically not pleasing and it's a disruption of the traditional streetscape. In closing Shullaw
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 5 of 19
wanted to repeat that they really hope the Board will accept this appeal and not permit the
staircase to be built on this building. Additionally, they are also concerned that if the City does
go ahead with this design it's going to set a precedent for double stairways on the fronts of
buildings throughout the Northside and that's not something they want to see.
Gregg Geerdes(105 Iowa Avenue) is the local attorney who has the privilege of representing a
number of people who desire to protect their neighborhood. First he wanted to comment on
what the previous speaker discussed regarding the problem with the website, when he checked
periodically on the weekend it was down, he found it to work yesterday when he checked, but it
did not work late this afternoon after about three o'clock. He stated that certainly affected their
ability to prepare for these meetings as he didn't have hard copies at that time of all the
documents as he relied on being able to use them via the City website. Geerdes suspects the
public encountered the same issues, especially over the weekend, so with that he would
respectfully recommend and suggest that they reschedule this until the next Board meeting so
that the public has a chance to fully appreciate what this dispute is all about because it is
important to the entire Northside. Geerdes provided additional paper handouts to the Board.
Carlson asked does the Board question because of the problems with the website they should
give them more time. Lientz noted the Board has adopted procedures for how these meetings
are run and included in the Board procedures is a section on notice about how people are
notified that the hearing is going to happen. Mr. Lehmann can speak to ensure that the notice
was properly followed. Article 5 of the Board procedures talks about three different ways that
notice is provided, one by sending letters 7 business days prior to the public hearing, two, a
newspaper notice is placed between 4 and 20 days prior to the hearing and three, posting a
sign 7 business days prior. He noted there is nothing in the Board's procedures that provide for
access to materials prior to the hearing, and that the rules the Board adopted are silent on that
so there is no there is no requirement that they be available, except for State Code which states
that the agenda needs to be set 24 hours prior to the meeting.
Lehmann noted the sign was posted March 17 after the application was submitted on February
15, notice was mailed on March 23 which is 20 days prior, and the newspaper notice was
published March 29, about 14 days prior. Traditionally the agenda packet is posted the Friday
before the meeting, and in this case the packet was posted on April 7. Lehmann noted they had
issues with the website viewer, but the packet was available for download. He would encourage
downloading the packet in the future as well. The agenda packet was updated on April 10.
Lehmann confirmed they followed typical BOA procedures. He added that if someone wants the
materials, they can also contact staff, and that the appellant came in and requested materials on
Friday, and staff printed some off for him.
Lientz stated his opinion is since Board procedures are silent on packet materials and this
hearing is the opportunity to present those things, he does not recommend a postponement is
required. However, a motion to table is something can be considered and is within the Board
discretion if they feel it's appropriate to do so, but it is not required by code. Staff already made
their presentation but if someone were to make a motion and it was seconded and carried, a
delay could be made. Mr. Geerdes has asked for such a motion so now would be the
appropriate time to consider it if the Chair so feels inclined, it is at Chair's discretion.
Carlson stated she would like to know how the other Board members feel about this.
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 6 of 19
Russo asked what would materially change, from the appellant's perspective, if they were given
another month. Geerdes stated they would be able to have at least one more meeting between
himself and his clients, probably two more meetings, in which they would have a chance to
review in detail the documents, particularly the most recent additions to the packet, as it's just
hard in this type of case to make an adequate preparation or to have an adequate meeting
without being able to access the documents.
Weitzel acknowledged how that would be frustrating but they've had a chance now to hear the
staffs proposal and now they're asking for a postponement so if the Board does postpone it are
they giving them an advantage. Lientz stated that is a possibility and again there's no legal
basis in the rules that this Board has adopted that would warrant or compel a continuance, they
can do that, but he is not advising them to do so.
Russo stated if the website had been functioning, they would have had access to the staff report
prior to tonight though, correct. Lehmann confirmed that is correct. Russo asked if there would
have been any material difference then versus now. Lehmann is unable to answer that as he is
acting as secretary, but he noted in terms of changes to the staff report packet, things that were
changed included additional correspondence from Bob Miklo and the initial memo from David
Ginger representing the owner of the property was removed, those were the two changes.
Lientz wanted to give staff the opportunity to weigh in on their thoughts on continuing or
postponing the matter. Dulek stated a delay would cause a stop work order on the owners
property so another option would be to not delay it for a month, the Board could meet at any
time, two weeks from now, a week from now, and so on as stafrs report would not change.
Carlson reiterated the only new information that was put in the packet was the Bob Miklo letter
and the fact that the lawyer for the builder asked to have his letter removed. She confirmed
those were the updates to the packet, otherwise the packet would have been the same.
Lientz noted another question would be whether the Board had opportunity to view all the
documents, were there any members of the Board that were not able to review the materials in
advance. All of the Board members confirmed they were able to download the documents and
view them. Lientz also reiterated notwithstanding that there was a notice given and posted and
mailed and to everybody within 500 feet that this was going to happen.
Carlson moved to table discussion on this item for one week, until April 19 at 5:15pm so
the Board can discuss this further. Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson acknowledged the City has had problems with their website and feels that everyone
should be able to have access to all of the information, especially since they have concerned
citizens here so they owe it to them to make sure that they have access to that information.
Parker does not feel they need to table this but accepts the motion on the table.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 4-1 (Parker dissenting).
The public hearing on this item remains open.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC23-0003:
Board of Adjustment
April 12, 2023
Page 7 of 19
An application submitted by Mark Holtkamp (A Latte Buzzness) requesting special exceptions to
allow a drive-through facility associated with an eating establishment and a drive-through facility
associated with an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
for property south of N. Dodge Street and west of N. Scott Boulevard.
Carlson opened the public hearing.
Dulek returned to position of acting City Attorney for the Board.
Baker returned to his position on the Board and Weitzel stepped down as a temporary member.
Lehmann stated this exception is for two drive-throughs at the currently vacant property at the
corner of North Scott Boulevard and North Dodge Street. He stated the area was recently
rezoned to Community Commercial (CC-2) and showed the aerial and zoning maps. The
subject property is currently a single property but there are plans to divide it into multiple lots per
the approved preliminary Development Overlay Plan (OPD). The area that they're really looking
at is zoned CC-2 area, not the portion of the site zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential
(RM-12) since proposed uses there are allowed by right. They're just looking at the drive-
through uses. In terms of surrounding uses, to the east are some public zones, the fire station,
and also a small sliver of Research Development Park owned by ACT. Directly south of the area
zoned CC-2 it is zoned RM-12 and just south of that is detached single family homes zoned low
density single family residential (RS-5). To the west there's some more public zoning where the
school district administration building is and to the north are residential uses with some
townhomes and some other RS-5 zones.
Lehmann stated the application is for two special exceptions, they are two different drive-
throughs. For the purposes of the presentation tonight he will be presenting them as one and
will just call out were they're different because for the most part the Board is just looking at
impacts on surrounding uses and those impacts are largely the same. It just varies how they're
structured and where they're located. For the two drive-through facilities, one is associated with
a coffee shop and one is associated with an ATM.
Lehmann reiterated the property is currently a 3.87-acre vacant lot. In terms of background for
the site it was previously rezoned in 2008 to commercial office for a bank and office use,
including a drive-through component, which was never built. It was recently rezoned in March
2023 with a planned development overlay(OPD)and a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone as
the base zone for 2.04 acres. The rest of the site was zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential
(RM-12). As part of that rezoning, a preliminary OPD plan was approved as was a sensitive
areas development plan due to the presence of critical slopes on the site. The applicant held a
good neighbor meeting as part of the initial rezoning in October 2022. Lehmann noted the
rezoning was approved with a couple conditions. One is that before the building permit is
issued, they have to have an approved landscape plan which includes North Dodge Street and
Scott Boulevard public right-of-way and there are some trees that would be removed as part of
the proposed OPD plan so any trees that are removed must be replanted. Second, prior to
issuance of a building permit is that there are dedicated public access easements for pedestrian
facilities that link to those public streets and the rights-of-way to provide connectivity. Third, prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy that a right turn lane be installed along the southbound
side of Scott Boulevard. Fourth, that a pedestrian crossing with a refuge island be installed
across Scott Boulevard which would lead directly to North Dubuque Road. Finally, the fifth
Board of Adjustment
April 12, 2023
Page 8 of 19
condition is that no vehicular access be allowed on North Dodge Street.
Lehmann next reviewed the actual site plan to help the Board visualize the area. He reiterated it
is currently one lot but they're expecting a plat which is required prior to site plan. They expect
that final plat application soon but it has not come in yet. On the site, the north area is shown as
CC-2 with two commercial lots, those lots are functioning as one tract which means that they
share common facilities and in this case it's mostly parking. To the south is the RM-12 zone with
the attached single-family lots. Regarding the proposed site plan, lot one would be the coffee
shop with the drive-through and then the drive-through ATM, both of those things would be on
lot one. Lot two is a proposed mixed-use building that would presumably have a restaurant use
on the ground floor and eight one-bedroom units above. That is what is shown on the OPD plan
but there are not plans to build it at this time. Lehmann pointed out the shared parking area and
noted the proposed mixed-use building parking would be built along with the coffee shop and
the ATM even though the mixed-use building would be built later. To the south those lots would
become attached single family, which are allowed by right, however the proposed multifamily
use in the CC-2 zone would require a special exception in the future.
Lehmann pointed out the access for this site is from North Scott Boulevard directly across from
the entrance to North Dubuque Road which forms a four-way intersection where on one leg is
Scott Boulevard and the other is North Dubuque Road and this access point that would lead into
the proposed development. He noted there's no curb cut there now, so that's being proposed
as part of this. He also pointed out they show a right turn lane that would be along North Scott
Boulevard essentially as you turn right off North Dodge Street moving southbound on North
Scott Boulevard, and that right turn lane would enter the proposed commercial development.
Lehmann explained that during final plat review is where the City actually receives construction
drawings that show the road width, the pavement depth, and all those things. There was some
technical questions and concerns about the turn lane from Dodge Street to Scott Boulevard but
Lehmann explained again those are the sorts of things that are finalized at final plat review.
Lehmann continued with the description of the area, in terms of the parking there are three
east/west parking aisles and two north/south parking drives, and the drive-throughs would be in
one direction arcing from the west-most drive. Both enter at the same place and one arcs by
the coffee shop, that one has a bypass lane, and the other would arc by the ATM. He noted
folks in those lines could use the bypass lane if needed, depending on how much stacking there
was. The coffee shop is proposed to have an order board and pickup window and the drive-
through ATM would only be that singular lane.
In terms of pedestrian access, it's provided from North Dodge along one connection and there
are two connections from North Scott Boulevard in addition to an internal pedestrian connection
through the parking area and site.
Lehmann showed some pictures of the area as it exists now. He reiterated that access to this
proposed development is off Scott Boulevard and that is going to be the only access to the
property in perpetuity because of the rezoning condition. Access points are guided by City policy
for access standards, and staff generally tries to restrict access to arterial streets.
The role of the Board tonight is to approve or deny the special exception as requested. Those
would be based on this the approval criteria for the relevant special exception, which in this
case is two drive-throughs that would be specific standards relevant to drive-throughs and then
Board of Adjustment
April 12, 2023
Page 9 of 19
general standards for all special exceptions.
Russo asked if there any limitations to the type of business, right now there's a coffee house
proposed but if they sell that can it become something else. Lehmann said that would be
guided by the uses allowed in the CC-2 zone which is pretty broad and allows a wide variety of
commercial uses, including drinking establishments. Residential uses would require a special
exception, as is going to be required for the mixed-use building. However there are additional
standards if there are significant changes to the OPD plan, because it would require a rezoning,
So there could be different uses that occupy the building but if the drive-throughs were ever
expanded in the future that would trigger a new special exception.
Lehmann first reviewed the specific criterial regarding drive-through facilities which are found at
14-4C-2K-3. The first subset of criteria are related to access and circulation for the drive-
throughs, first that wherever possible and practical drive-through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys or shared cross access drives. In this case, the proposed drive-
throughs associate with the coffee shop and ATM would be accessed from the shared drive
through the parking area and not accessed directly from North Scott Boulevard. Additionally,
there would be no access off North Dodge Street as that was a condition of the rezoning so staff
finds this criterion to be met.
Second is that to provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. Again, access to the proposed commercial lots would be from
the single curb cut on North Scott Boulevard and is aligned with North Dubuque Road to form a
four-way intersection. The curb cut to access the property will maintain a safe pedestrian
movement in the same manner as on the east side of the street with North Dubuque Road and
they are going to have a crossing island. Staff will ensure that all relevant standards are met
during final plat and site plan review which includes things like the required sidewalks,
pedestrian accessibility required by City code and those sorts of things.
Third is an adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided. Recommended for eating
establishments is six spaces and the minimum recommended for non-eating establishments
(like banking uses) is four spaces. The coffee shop includes a single drive-through lane with six
stacking spaces that passes the order board and pickup window in addition to the bypass lane.
The ATM includes 4 stacking spaces and the bypass lane can be used by those waiting for the
ATM so based on those minimum recommended standards staff believes this criterion is met.
Lehmann noted however, sometimes those the minimum recommended amounts can be
questioned by the Board if they have specific concerns related to a specific use. He added, in
this case there is substantial room for overflow within the parking area that would prevent it from
backing up into streets that might compromise traffic safety. Therefore, staff believes that helps
bolster that case for the minimums.
Fourth is that sufficient on street signage and pavement markings be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossing, stop signs, no entrance areas etc. In this
case, the site plan shows directional arrows in the drive-throughs and the parking areas as well
as directional signage for the drive-through and a Do Not Enter sign at the exits. The site plan
also shows pedestrian routes that are demarcated where they cross internal drives, which helps
improve the visibility of pedestrians crossing and improves their safety. That being said, staff
recommends that as a condition of approval the pedestrian routes be permanently demarcated
using integral dyed concrete, alternate paving materials or other permanent methods to ensure
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 10 of 19
that pedestrian safety continues to be preserved in the future. Lehmann explained in some
cases if they use surface paint, for example, that wears away and that's why staff recommends
that condition for permanent markings. Staff believes with that condition this criterion is met.
The next subset of criteria are related to the location of facilities. The first is that the drive-
through lanes and service windows be located on a non-street facing facade. In this case, it is
on a non-street facing facade for both the ATM and coffee shop so this criterion is met.
Second is that those drive-through lanes are set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and
public rights-of-way and screened from view as well. Lehmann stated, both the coffee shop and
ATM are set back well over 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of-way. The coffee
shop is set back around 75 feet from North Scott Boulevard and from North Dubuque Road and
it's more than 30 feet from adjacent lot lines. The ATM is set back even further from the streets
and again 30 feet from adjacent lot lines. In terms of screening, that is discussed under the next
set of sub criteria (design standards). Based on these findings staff believes this criterion is met.
The third subset of criteria is related to design standards and making sure the drive throughs do
not negatively affect surrounding properties in the area. The first criterion limits the amount of
drive-throughs to not impact the pedestrian environment or quality of the streetscape. For the
coffee shop, there is one drive-through lane proposed for the pickup window and then one
bypass lane both of which are about nine feet wide. The ATM drive-through lane is about 11
feet wide. In terms of impacts to the design quality of the streetscape, both of these drive-
throughs are on the interior of lots and set back pretty far from those rights-of-way. The drive-
throughs are screened from North Scott Boulevard by buildings from the north and from
landscaping that complies with City standards to the north and east. Therefore, staff believes
this criterion is met. Also the recommended condition that pedestrian routes be permanently
demarcated will help with the safety of the pedestrian environment.
The second sub criterion is that drive-throughs are screened from adjacent streets and adjacent
properties to the S2 standard or if it's for residential properties then to the S3 standard. In this
case there are residential uses to the north and to the south, to the north are townhomes and
the proposed coffee shop building will help screen part of the drive-through from the townhomes
and there's also S3, landscaping shown on the landscape plan. To the south where there are
other residential uses and RM-12 zoning, there is S3 screening shown as well so that is also
met. To the east and west are those institutional uses that need to be screened to the S2
standard. Also to the west is an existing tree line so they're not adding landscaping to the west,
just to the east. Overall, staff finds that the screening criteria is met.
Carlson asked if to the west there is a possibility that at some point those trees will be taken out
and if so then who would have to deal with the adding in the screening. Lehmann replied he
believes those trees are in a conservation easement and they will discuss easements and those
type of legal encumbrances at the time of final plat. Also, there are steep slopes where those
trees are and there's protection for the steep slopes. If there is a concern, there could be
condition added that the tree area be located within a conservation easement and the trees not
be disturbed, that would be up to the purview of the Board.
The third sub-criterion for design standards are that multiple service windows servicing a single
stacking lane should be considered to reduce idling. Lehmann explained the coffee shop has an
order board and a pickup window which reduces idling. ATMs have relatively high throughput,
Board of Adjustment
Apri112,2023
Page 11 of 19
so they are not going to have as much idling. Staff finds that this criterion is met.
Russo asked if there would be food at the coffee shop as well, or just coffee, as that might affect
the idling time. Lehmann acknowledged that is a great question for the applicant.
The fourth sub-criterion is that stacking spaces, driveways and drive-through windows minimize
the potential for conflicts and that they're integrated in the streetscape. Again, in terms of the
streetscape, access is from North Scott Boulevard across from North Dubuque Road through a
shared parking area with a mix of uses. They tried to minimize those potential vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts with the rezoning conditions such as no access from North Dodge Street
and the condition for that right turn lane. With regards to pedestrian safety, there's the condition
for a pedestrian island on the pedestrian crossing across North Scott Boulevard and then also
staff recommended the condition to permanently delineate those pedestrian paths through the
site as well. In terms of vehicular conflicts, the drive-through facilities are clearly separated from
the parking areas which should help reduce some of those conflicts. Regarding the effects on
surrounding streetscape, it's on the interior of a lot and surrounded by screening and buildings
and that helps integrate it into the design so staff believes this criterion is met.
The fifth sub-criterion is to comply with outdoor lighting standards. Lehmann stated these are
reviewed at site plan review by staff so staff finds this criterion to be met since they have to
meet the standards at site plan.
The sixth sub-criterion was repealed in 2016.
The final sub-criteria is that loud speakers or intercom systems must minimize disturbance to
adjacent uses, especially residential uses. For the coffee shop, the order board is angled away
from the adjacent right-of-way and also from where the proposed multifamily would be which
shows some consideration for future uses. In terms of other residential uses, the order board is
located relatively far away form them, more than 200 feet. The ATM is also oriented south
which is away from the adjacent right-of-way so with that staff believes this criterion is met.
Lehmann next reviewed the general standards for all special exceptions, found at 14-413-3. First
is that it will not endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He noted there are
no waivers from the underlying zoning code that were requested as part of that OPD in the
March 2023 rezoning. The project also incorporates a mix of uses on a vacant infill parcel at one
of the City's main entryways, including a diversity of housing options and some additional
commercial services for surrounding residents and travelers. In terms of traffic volumes, traffic
will increase at the North Scott Boulevard intersection access, but the street has adequate
capacity with improvements as required as conditions of the rezoning (which are discussed in
more detail under the fifth standard, which is specifically related to traffic). Regarding on site
circulation, there is adequate access within the site to accommodate anticipated users and
again, there's the proposed signage and pavement markings which should help efficiently direct
traffic. Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the site and will be clearly demarcated for
pedestrian safety. Lehmann noted there are trees that will be removed as part of other
improvements to the site but those must be replaced. And finally, with regards to the sensitive
features on the site, which are the steep slopes, they will be protected in compliance with the
sensitive areas development plan approved during the rezoning as a level two sensitive areas
review (which means that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the plan rather than
staff). Based on these findings, staff believes this criterion is met.
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 12 of 19
The second general criterion is related to effects on surrounding property and not causing
substantial negative impacts. Lehmann reiterated the drive-throughs are adequately set back
and screened according to the standards and in this case more than the minimum required.
Vehicular access is exclusively from North Scott Boulevard, which has adequate capacity,
exterior lights must meet relevant standards within the zone to prevent light trespass and glare
on neighboring properties so staff doesn't believe that it's going to affect the use, enjoyment or
values of nearby properties based on other uses that could be developed within the zone.
The third criterion is related to normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
properties. Again, most surrounding properties are developed, this lot is vacant and there are
adequate setbacks and adequate buffers. The proposed drive-through facilities are on the
interior of the lot which minimizes its impacts on surrounding properties. Again, there is
adequate traffic capacity on North Scott Boulevard so based on these findings staff doesn't
anticipate any impacts on future redevelopment or improvement of adjacent properties.
The fourth criterion is related to access, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or
necessary facilities. The property is an infill parcel surrounded by existing uses. There are
adequate facilities provided, sanitary sewer and water can service the property and have
sufficient capacity for the proposed use. Stormwater detention is proposed in outlot A. North
Scott Boulevard has adequate capacity for traffic, the site has adequate space for vehicular
circulation and parking. There are adequate pedestrian facilities, again with the conditions
recommended by staff help improve safety and all will be reviewed by staff at the time of final
plat and site plan review, so staff believes that this criterion is met.
Fifth is that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Lehmann stated as part of the rezoning a traffic
impact study was submitted which found that the proposed development would provide
acceptable levels of service during peak hours, those levels are B and C on a range from A to F.
Lehmann explained a grade at B, C or D is considered acceptable, it means that it might be
busy, but one can still travel at adequate speeds generally. The traffic study also found that the
existing signal light at North Dodge Street and North Scott Boulevard would continue to operate
acceptably with the development as proposed and the OPD plan showed these drive throughs,
so the drive throughs were considered as part of that use and knowing a lot of the use for the
drive-throughs would be existing traffic on the streets that would divert to the use to grab coffee
or money and then divert back on, so it's less new traffic and the existing traffic will be the
primary users. Lehmann did note however that the traffic impact study recommended installing
a southeast-bound right-turn lane on North Scott Boulevard and a pedestrian facility with a
refuge island across North Scott Boulevard and those were both incorporated as conditions of
the rezoning. The traffic impact study ultimately determined that the proposed development,
with recommended improvements, would not increase traffic to the point of overburdening the
existing street system and staff concurred with those findings. Lehmann added that staff
consulted with the fire department as part of the rezoning and the fire department had no
concerns with the traffic that would be part of the proposed use. The fire station's primary
access point is on North Dubuque Road. The traffic study also contemplated access points and
noted that this access point where there would be three lanes (one right turn lane, one straight
lane and one left turn lane) was optimally located, spaced and sized. In terms of traffic within the
actual use, the commercial lots would be accessed through that parking area that is behind the
principal buildings. Again, there's adequate overflow space from the drive-through uses that are
proposed within that parking area so that shouldn't affect congestion on the public streets. And
Board of Adjustment
April 12, 2023
Page 13 of 19
then there's also signage and pavement markings to effectively direct traffic as well.
Baker wonders about this particular access point because he drives on Scott Boulevard every
day. He asked when they talk about the traffic impact study, does that include actual traffic
counts during peak hours. Lehmann replied yes. Baker noted they are also assuming that this
development is not going to generate new traffic as much as it's just going to be for the existing
traffic. Lehmann agreed. Baker noted a concern at peak hours is nobody obeys the speed limit
on Scott Boulevard, especially coming off of Dodge and there is a curve there off of Dodge
going towards this location. He noted there will be that right turn lane that is going to be created
but he is concerned about the exit left turn lane because at peak times it is going to jam up, so it
will be a very difficult left turn out of that access at peak times, it just seems like an inadequate
traffic arrangement but that is not the purview of this Board and they really can't predicate a
decision on this application based upon concerns on that access. Lehmann stated if the concern
is that the drive-through will create the issue, not the development without the drive-throughs,
then that can be discussed. Baker stated he doesn't think the left turn lane here is adequate.
Lehmann stated the OPD plan was approved and removing the drive-through lanes from the
OPD plan may be considered a substantive change, but presumably the development could
occur as proposed without the drive-throughs.
Lehmann stated if the Board believes the drive-throughs add no additional traffic then the drive-
through is not an issue. Baker stated his concern is with the in and out of the intersection there.
Lehmann stated what staff is looking at for a special exception is really traffic congestion on
public streets and generally not looking as much at congestion within the site unless there are
potentials for a drive-through to spill out into the street. Baker reiterated that his concern is the
hazard factor during peak hours coming around the curve, even if there's a right turn lane, traffic
going around that will cause a partial blocking of traffic as noted from his experience on that
street. He believes they are increasing the potential for some sort of accident at that
intersection based upon that left turn there. That being said, he can't use that as a reason to
vote against this because quite honestly the drive-throughs are not the issue for him.
Baker asked was there any consideration given to a right turn only in that intersection, like they
did at the Brugger's Bakery over on Riverside, restricting the exit to be right turn only onto
Benton Street. Lehmann cannot speak to that as he was not involved in the rezoning.
Lehmann moved onto the sixth general standard which states that the special exception
conforms to all other applicable standards. So, in this case the minimum parking requirements
are definitely met and are based on the spaces that are shown on full build out of the site, which
would include 10 spaces on lot one for the coffee shop and 31 spaces on lot two for the
proposed mixed-use building. He reiterated again, at this time there are no plans for that mixed-
use building so the site would be over parked for a while. The site plan also includes an area for
bicycle parking, and it protects steep slopes in compliance with the sensitive areas development
plan. Staff will meet with the applicant and ensure that the proposed development conforms
with applicable zoning standards during the subsequent site plan and building permit reviews.
There would also be the construction drawings reviewed at that final plat. Therefore, based on
that staff believes that this criterion is met.
Finally, the proposed plan must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which is IC 2030
and it designates the subject property as public/private open space on the Future Land Use
Map, primarily because there are regulated slopes on the site. However, it also notes that the
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 14 of 19
neighborhood design principles should be considered when interpreting the land use map and
that includes alternatives at major intersections especially collectors and arterials. Considering
things like neighborhood commercial or multifamily there are also numerous goals supported by
the project, including the provision of quality, compatible infill, diversity of housing types,
neighborhood commercial areas within a walking distance of other homes. In terms of the
Northeast District Plan, it doesn't really contemplate the subject property but because the
rezoning was recent, Council did find that the project was consistent at the time of rezoning in
terms of the zones that were proposed, and they approved it with the OPD/CC-2 with this
concept in March 2023. They also approve the sensitive areas development plan with regards to
impacts the critical slopes with addresses the Comprehensive Plan's desire to protect sensitive
features. Based on that review staff does believe that this criterion is met.
Lehmann also noted that staff got one piece of correspondence that was received after the
agenda packet was distributed so he handed that out to the Board today and forwarded it to the
Board prior to the meeting. It is from Doug Vladek, who lives north of the proposed area, and
he was concerned with traffic congestion, especially as the traffic intersects with the fire station.
Staff recommends approval of EXC23- 0003 that allows a drive- through facility accessory to a
coffee shop and a drive-through facility accessory to an Automated Teller Machine in a
Community Commercial (CC-2)zone for the property located south of North Dodge Street and
west of North Scott Boulevard, subject to the condition that pedestrian routes shall be
permanently demarcated using integral dyed concrete, alternative paving materials, or other
permanent methods with designs as approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval.
Carlson asked what would typically occur if the trees went down and they no longer met the
screening standards. Lehmann stated if there was a complaint, they would be required to meet
the standards, but it would be on a complaint basis. He added if that's a concern, the Board can
request a conservation easement as part of the final plat. Carlson asked with the conservation
easement than those trees will always remain there. Lehmann replied typically what would
happen is as part of the subdividers agreement it would state the trees need to remain in
perpetuity. There are cases where in conservation easements trees get cut down and in those
cases, staff would require replanting, etc. A conservation easement would provide legal
protections and be incorporated in the plat.
Russo noted on the back of those lots there is a pretty significant slope, so when they say
protect critical slopes is it the entirety or is it just sections of that sloped area. Lehmann
explained it would be based on the sensitive areas development plan that was approved
through the rezoning. In terms of what defines critical slopes, there's a specific code meaning
to where the slope is above a certain grade and with those slopes they are protected, if there
are any changes it has to go through a planning and zoning review, instead of a staff review. He
noted there are some critical slopes that are impacted but he is not sure offhand how much.
Some fill would occur and there would be a retaining wall behind.
Russo asked if it weren't for the drive-throughs would there be any difference at all in the
location of the curb cut. Lehmann confirmed the curb cut would likely occur there anyway,
primarily because it's directly across from North Dubuque Street so there is already an
intersection. The case where they might see something different is if a larger use had been
proposed and that would have affected the traffic study because it would impact the amount of
vehicles. In this case, there's an OPD plan that basically limits the owner to substantial
Board of Adjustment
Apri112,2023
Page 15 of 19
compliance with that OPD plan and limits the size of the uses. There can be different uses to
occupy the space, but the size and the layout of the lot should be roughly similar regardless of
what would occur there. Any substantial changes, like a reconfiguration of the area for example,
would trigger substantial compliance and require a completely new rezoning and at that time
staff would be able to request another traffic impact analysis.
Baker asked if the traffic study is based upon anticipated maximum use. Lehmann replied it is
based on the OPD plan, which would be the coffee shop, the multifamily building with the
ground floor commercial.
Swygard had a question about the pedestrian access and the interior of the site plan and
between the ATM and the parking is there screening there. Lehmann confirmed there is
screening there to the S3 standard. Swygard noted regarding the traffic flow, is there a
sidewalk to the east of the screening. Lehmann will defer to the engineer but he believes it's
within public right-of-way and the interior pedestrian route would be on the private property and
that is what staff is recommending be demarcated permanently. Swygard noted people would
have to cross the ATM lane to get from the sidewalk to the parking lot. Lehmann confirmed that
was correct and again is why staff is recommending the pavement be demarcated. There will
be three areas that are demarcated as pedestrian routes into the parking area.
Swygard asked how many handicap spaces are required for this type of parking lot. Lehmann
said it would depend on the number of spaces and he did not know that offhand but that would
typically be reviewed at site plan review. The number and the location of those would be
reviewed and need to comply with the ADA standards for handicap parking spaces. Swygard
noted from the preliminary plat drawings it looks like anyone that would be using the handicap
spaces would eventually have to cross two lanes of traffic to get to the future building. Lehmann
noted as currently proposed that is correct. Swygard asked who is responsible for the
placement of crossings. Lehmann said it's based on the site development standards for the
CC-2 zone and there's a standard that there be pedestrian walkways between buildings and
between parking. If the Board believes something specific is needed in order to promote
pedestrian safety that extends further south, that's something that could be a condition. As of
right now, staff has interpreted this to meet the site development standards as currently
proposed because it leads to the parking area and between the buildings.
Russo asked about the sidewalk along Scott Boulevard and is it also a bike path. Lehmann
noted it is an extra wide sidewalk and they would have to reconstruct it to those standards.
Swygard asked if the sidewalk area would be demarcated permanently. Lehmann replied it
would not, it would be more similar to a public sidewalk where it would cross a street normally.
Swygard asked about the hours of operation of the coffee shop. Lehmann was not sure but
that's a great question for the applicant. She asked if there is indoor seating in this coffee shop.
Lehmann believes there is yes, as well as an outdoor patio.
Russo asked what the size of the building is. Tthe applicant noted it was 1800 square feet.
Russo noted they don't needed pay attention to the structure of the buildings because it is just
the drive-throughs that they're dealing with, so their focus is limited. Lehmann added however
the Board could find a structure size could have an impact on the amount of users coming
through the drive-throughs.
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 16 of 19
Russo asked about future use if the owner sells or there is a change. If it is regulated by
existing zoning, could it become a bar. Lehmann believes within the CC-2 zone it could become
a bar. Carlson asked if it could become a bar with a drive-through. Lehmann said some uses
allowed in this zone include indoor commercial recreation, drinking establishments (provisionally
but the provisional uses are primarily related to stuff near downtown), eating and drinking
establishments, offices, quick vehicle servicing use (like a gas station which would require might
require a special exception or have additional standards), alcohol sales oriented retail would be
allowed, hospitality oriented retail, delayed deposit service could be allowed provisionally(the
provisional uses are related to spacing standards between that and surrounding uses) but for
most the parking requirements wouldn't change. Parking requirements are most restrictive for
eating and drinking establishments. Regarding the drive-throughs, they might see changes as to
what the uses are and if it turned into a bank with a drive-through there would probably be less
use than for a coffee shop. If it turned into a Taco John's or whatever, it might be used more or
the same, it could vary based on the specific use. The size of the parking lot being built currently
doesn't have any impact on the drive-throughs.
Swygard asked what happens with all of that parking space if the future mixed-use building
doesn't develop. Lehmann replied that would depend on if it counted as a substantive change
from the OPD plan. Right now the OPD plan shows a multifamily building with apartments
above, if that doesn't get built and something else gets built, it might require a new rezoning.
Mark Hoitkamp (Scooters Coffee) stated the mantra for Scooters Coffee is amazing drinks
amazingly fast. To answer the question about food, that's the same mantra for food too. They
do have breakfast sandwiches, burritos, cinnamon rolls, all kinds of different food options, and
all kinds of different drinks but it's not a type of coffee shop where one is going to sit in line for a
long time, they're very fast. To answer the question on hours of operation, they are open from
5:30 in the morning until 8:00 at night during the week and on weekends from 6:00 in the
morning until 8:00 at night.
Russo asked if they have another business in town. Holtkamp confirmed there are other
Scooter Coffee in the area and some others out of town. He stated they just opened this exact
same building on the Coralville Strip two months ago, it's an all-glass building coffee house and
one can go inside and sit down, it's a very beautiful building. As far as worst backup, they
usually have a five-car stack and maybe get another five behind that at the worst times but it's
fast and it'll never get anywhere close to getting back out to the road or anything like that. That
may happen with other franchisees for different coffee shops but at their shop it's not going to
take 10 minutes to get a coffee.
Brian Boelk(Axiom Consultants) is the engineer on this project. To answer a couple concerns,
in regard to the existing tree line along the west side, most of that is already protected because
of protected slopes and woodlands so that screening will remain. Regarding the sensitive areas,
they did go through the sensitive areas plan and that analysis included steep slopes, critical
slopes, and protected slopes, there are a certain percentage of steep and critical slopes they
can touch, but they cannot touch protected slopes, which they are not doing and some of that
tree line to the west is within that protected slope area so it is protecting those trees as well.
Regarding the concerns with traffic which has been discussed, it is not pertaining to the drive-
throughs that this exception is addressing but a complete traffic study was done, and it included
all new traffic counts. From that study came the right turn lane, which will be constructed as part
of this project. So going south on North Scott Boulevard off Dodge Street, currently, there is a
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 17 of 19
left turn lane for North Dubuque Road, a through lane that goes through Scott Boulevard and
the new right turn lane would then be west of that within the public right-of-way. It does push
that street width out in terms of street, because it's going to be additional pavement and does
necessitate pushing the sidewalk a bit outside that right-of-way which is why there is a public
access easement to cover that sidewalk. That right turn lane then ends there and then does not
go any further to the south from there, it is just to access that development.
Carlson asked how long the turn lane would be. Boelk replied it would end at the driveway for
the development. Carlson asked if they could extend that right turn and Boelk replied there was
nothing shown in the traffic study and from the City Traffic Engineer that would necessitate that.
Carlson asked where the parking spaces for the development are. Boelk noted there are 10
parking spaces on lot one and those are the parking stalls that are critical to Scooters and per
City code there would be a northern bank of parking with a drive aisle that has five stalls on
each side there. With regards to the handicap stalls, they're required to have one handicap stall
to serve lot one and what would be the Scooters. For what would serve lot two and the mixed-
use building in the future that certainly could change in terms of the location and to make sure
there is the correct pedestrian connectivity to that mixed-use building during that final site plan.
Swygard asked what the engineering rationale is for having that island in the lot between the
two drive-throughs. Boelk stated it is created to get that turning movement and drive aisle
space for that drive-through. The separation also provides a little bit more open/green space in
terms of look and not too much paved area as well. Swygard asked approximately how far is the
lot one parking that's used for the coffee shop from the coffee shop. Boelk replied it is roughly
about 100 feet from the furthest south parking stall.
Carlson closed the public hearing.
Baker moved approval of EXC23-0003, to allow a drive-through facility accessory to a
coffee shop and a drive-through facility accessory to an Automated Teller Machine in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for the property located at south of North Dodge
Street and west of North Scott Boulevard, subject to the condition that pedestrian routes
shall be permanently demarcated using integral dyed concrete, alternative paving
materials, or other permanent methods with designs as approved by the City Engineer
prior to site plan approval.
Parker seconded the motion.
Russo stated the decision is a little formidable because there's so many unknowns and he is
trying to just make sure he knows ultimately what he is agreeing to, and that's his hesitation at
this point. He noted their purview is limited and is just regarding the drive-throughs.
Baker stated the only reservation about this application is the entrance and that is something
that basically has been decided before it got here. He anticipates problems here but they are
unrelated to the issue before them so he would support this as presented.
Swygard also sees problems, mostly related to pedestrian movement from the parking to the
coffee shop and the movement of the traffic through the drive-throughs with the pedestrians
having to cross the lanes of traffic exiting the drive-through. If it is just having approximately five
Board of Adjustment
April 12, 2023
Page 18 of 19
people, maybe five additional at peak times, it's not a concern that would prevent her from
approving this but she does think it's a concern that needs to be addressed by staff.
Carlson noted she is also concerned about the exit, which has nothing to do with the drive-
through situation, but she is concerned about what could happen there. Maybe down the road
they can put in a stoplight or a roundabout and deal with that situation. Putting the aisle in the
middle might possibly help slow the traffic down a little bit, they did put the island in on
Muscatine Avenue and it has had an effect on the speed of traffic, but that doesn't have as
much traffic as Scott Boulevard. She is also worried about some of the internal logistics of the
traffic and the pedestrians, but they probably would not make her not vote for it.
Russo stated regarding agenda item EXC23-0003 he does concur with the findings set forth in
the staff report of meeting date, April 12, 2023 and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends
that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. Baker
seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Carlson 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 8, 2023 MINUTES:
Baker moved to approve the minutes of March 8, 2023, with minor edits noted by Swygard.
Russo seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Lehmann noted the Board will meet next week on April 19 at 5:15pm, since that will be at the
same time as the Planning and Zoning Commission they will need to find another location,
probably the public library or the Senior Center.
At the May 10 meeting there will be a presentation by Council as well as an application to
consider.
ADJOURNMENT:
Carlson moved to adjourn this meeting, Parker seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
April 12,2023
Page 19 of 19
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2423
318 4/12
NAME TERM
EXP.
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2023 X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X X
Key: X=Present
O=Absent
O!E=AbsenUExcused
—--=Not a Member
Item Number: IP9.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Board of Adjustment: April 19
Attachments: Board of Adjustment: April 19
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
IOWA CITY SENIOR CENTER, 28 S. LINN STREET
APRIL 19, 2023— 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Paula Swygard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker, Bryce Parker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Grant Lientz [as independent legal
counsel during the appeal], Danielle Sitzman
OTHERS PRESENT- Gregg Geerdes, Bruce Ayati, Sharon DeGraw, Thomas Agran,
Jim Throgmorton, Jake Vardaman, Dorothy Fowles
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
Roll call of the Board was taken.
APPEAL ITEM APL23-0002:
An appeal submitted by David Moore to overturn a decision of the Building Official to extend a
building permit for a single-family home at 319 North Van Buren Street: alleging that the
proposed building does not meet setback and other requirements of City Code.
Public hearing continued from April 12, 2023.
Lehmann stated because it's an appeal, where it's a decision by the building official, he is only
acting as the capacity of the secretary of the Board and the Board has Grant Lientz of North
Liberty as an independent counsel tonight for the Board.
Carlson stated the presentations would resume where they left off, which is that staff has made
their initial presentation, and the appellant is in the middle of their presentation.
Gregg Geerdes (105 Iowa Avenue) is the lawyer representing Mr. Moore and some other
Northside residents in connection with this matter. His first point is what exactly in reality are
they talking about, he provided the Board a handout last week of the plans for the proposed
project. City code specifically states that you can't have staircases that serve the front or main
entrance of a home that protrudes into the required setback. The issue then becomes what is
the main entrance to the house. The City says no, that's not the main entrance, the main
entrance is around the corner and is a door that enters into the south side of the residence from
the alley. There's an old cliche that goes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and flies
like a duck it's a duck and the main entrance that looks like a main entrance and serves like a
main entrance really is the main entrance, regardless of the label that the City staff has chosen
to put on it. Why is that the main entrance, looking at the middle floor plan prepared by the
applicant it shows when you enter that front door you see a room listed as a foyer. The other
thing there is a nice coat closet for when you are coming home to hang clothing. Geerdes was
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 2 of 12
curious as to the definition of a foyer and according to Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, a foyer is an entry with an entrance hallway or an entrance hall. To compare this
front door with the side door that they proposed as the main entrance, that side door they claim
is the main door enters into what they've called an office on their own plans. So is the main
entrance to a building the one that enters into a foyer or is it the side door that opens into an
office. Geerdes thinks the answer is clear that it goes into the foyer. This is a conclusion that is
required by the definition of what the term main entrance means in the City code and as he
recalls it is something to the effect that the primary entrance located on the exterior wall of the
building used by residents of a dwelling unit to gain access. Such an entrance is typically
located on a street facing wall. He agreed that makes all the common sense in the world
because who is going to walk through the sidewalk approaching the conspicuous middle of the
house along the street side and not say that is the main entrance. It was obviously intended to
be the main entrance because they know that from the plan. They don't have a foyer when you
enter from an outside door to an office. That of course is not the main entrance because who
wants to have an office for business matters, have all your paperwork available for all to see
when they enter through that door. What else is going on here, even if somehow that east door
is a side entrance, and not the main entrance, that still doesn't mean they can build a staircase
to serve it in front setback. The code of Iowa City limits all construction in the front setback
except for certain listed delineated things and staircases are not on that list. Therefore, it is
different, in the front setback, be it for the main door or a side door is prohibited.
Geerdes also asked the Board to please consider the neighborhood, when you look at that
neighborhood there is one thing that you will not see and that is a staircase, or anything else for
that matter, built to the point where it approaches within two or three feet of the street. The City
has given the Board a map of what the neighborhood is like, which is also one of his handouts,
and the neighboring properties have setbacks of between 8'8" and 11'9" and he believes the
City calculated that the average is between 9' and 10', 9'8" is what he recalls that is what they
have listed as a required setback for this practice. Of course, they wish to violate that setback
with this project and that's important for several reasons. One, it does not fit into the character of
the neighborhood, which is what the residential conservation designation is, at least to some
extent designed to do. Second, that creates serious safety issues. This house is next to the
alley and that alley has vehicles coming in and going out or it's got kids on bicycles and things
like that and there are going to be some slides shown which will reflect that visibility if there is a
proximate 9' intrusion into the setback will be blocked. Visibility will be blocked for the vehicles
coming to the south from the north on Van Buren, it'll be blocked for users of the alley who need
to enter the street and won't be able to see what is coming at them on Van Buren Street.
Lastly, on the issue of the neighborhood, Geerdes stated don't they think that if it was permitted
to have front setbacks that protrude within three feet of the street, that would be the way other
properties in that neighborhood would be built. The reasons this one is so far out of character
with everything else is because they are trying to do something not permitted by City code.
Geerdes stated they have no desire to shut down building on the project, what they are opposed
to is this building, a building so big is removes almost entirely the front setback. There is enough
room on that lot to build a typically sized house or duplex, much like the other houses in that
neighborhood are built so why are they allowing the character of the neighborhood, and the
safety of the neighborhood residents to be threatened when it is not necessary for that to
happen, what they're asking is that it be required to conform.
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 3 of 12
Bruce Ayati (821 North Linn Street) is a homeowner owner and landlord in the Northside
Neighborhood. He noted it's clear if someone were to stand directly in front of his house, there's
only one entrance they can see in the front as defined by the street side, so the only reasonable
interpretation is that door is the main entrance. He thinks that's the main point. In the design for
319 North Van Buren, the de facto main entrance and the stairwell is a clear violation of code.
One of the purposes of this code is to make walkability in the RNS-12 neighborhood.
Walkability does not just mean that it is physically possible to walk somewhere, but that is both
desirable and safe to do so. The stairwell in this design is imposing and makes it undesirable to
walk by and reduces the sightlines of nearby automobiles, making it less safe.
Sharon DeGraw (519 Brown Street) has lived in the north side for 20 years and has been
following the development at 319 North Van Buren Street for a little over a year. When she
understood how close the staircase is located to the sidewalk in the current design, out of
disbelief and concern for safety she checked with Bob Miklo, who has worked as a city planner
and has some zoning expertise, and he provided the analysis in the agenda packet and a follow
up analysis dated April 8, which the Board should have also received. DeGraw noted there is a
specific zoning code that covers the RNS-12, which prohibits second story staircases in the
front setback area. The building permit appears to have been issued with a small but important
oversight. Now that she has had some time to read the packet for this meeting, she senses that
there is an attempt to give an alternative reading of the zoning code and hopes the Board will
stick with the intended purpose of the setback code to disallowed second story staircase in the
setbacks, there are no existing staircases of this kind in the front of Northside single family
homes. This appeal talks about doorways as main or principal entrances and staircases.
DeGraw pointed out that the subject is really about preserving front setbacks. What happens at
319 North Van Buren influences future development in the neighborhood. Reducing the front
setback by 8' or 10' will lead some investment property owners on a path of deferred
maintenance in regard to smaller housing units. 319 North Van Buren is outside of a
conservation district, but it can change future infill along the street or in other neighborhoods,
especially for lots next to alleyways. If the staircase is allowed, it will chip away at the purpose of
stabilization in the RNS-12 neighborhood by taking out affordable housing stock and replacing it
with new larger homes that have three car garages and are unaffordable for many single-family
home buyers. Her earliest and continuing concern for the staircase is safety. It's too close to
the alley and the sidewalk. It introduces too many stress points for drivers and pedestrians but
especially for children who often don't understand that cars can go speeding out of alleys and
no matter how careful a driver is when they can't see a pedestrian until the last minute it's very
difficult to stop in time. The best resolution for this appeal would be to support Mr. Moore and
ask that the front second story staircase be removed, then the building can be brought back into
compliance and be a better fit for the neighborhood. After hearing everyone speak and
deliberating as Board members she would ask that they lean to the side of causing the least
harm for the residents who choose to live in this neighborhood for its charming qualities. There
are mostly single-family homes, one or two stories in height with attractive streetscapes, which
includes safe front yards for children to play in and space for trees, shrubs and gardens. Her
husband, children and herself really love living in the north side and would like to see it continue
being a comfortable, safe place to live with good infill development. DeGraw also provided
pictures in her correspondence to the Board. Again noting the fagade makes it look really clear
to her that's a red door where the staircase leads up to and a door that's red in color signifies
main entrance to her. She believes that the staircase starts maybe about 5' from the sidewalk,
that's pretty close, and a pedestrian could reach out and touch it. DeGraw showed an
approximate view of what it would be if a driver was exiting the alley noting it wouldn't be easy if
Board of Adjustment
April 19,2023
Page 4 of 12
you're driving, if they're standing still they you might be able to get a look down there but a lot of
college students go down that alleyway. During one of the previous appeals discussions Mr.
Oliveira said that there are a lot of college students driving back and forth in that alleyway, so
she has concerns. Next, she showed a south facing view noting a little kid riding a bike wouldn't
see if cars were about to exit the alleyway, and that also gives her concern.
Thomas Agran (512 North Van Buren Street) stated he lives about a block north of this location.
He is not against new builds in the neighborhood but this whole property has been reverse
engineered into some kind of attempt at compliance. The design business is a balance sheet.
During the City staff presentation last week it indicated to him a degree of subjectivity around
the facade definitions and in light of that subjectivity he is really urging the Board to look at the
code with objectivity. Why do they have these setbacks, his take is it's not just because zoning
asks that they maintain sight alignment for aesthetic and community reasons related to views
and the respect to the commons. But the setbacks also exist for safety reasons in
neighborhoods like this. That alley runs along there and all of the backyards are paved over to
create maximum occupancy private parking lots. Agran lives on an analogous alley, Van Buren
Street, just a block north of this, and said they only need to spend one day in the northside
watching these alleys to know that the generally overbuilt alleys of the north side, which are
legally wide enough to handle two lanes of traffic, serve as a sort of quasi lawless set of
secondary streets. The property as it's designed is at odds with the desired outcomes of the
zoning code and is a hazard to pedestrians and it obstructs use of the sidewalks. Agran crossed
this alley carrying his newborn daughter home from Mercy Hospital, his daughter will leave
Horace Mann and walk to the library in a few years going by this alley. It is part of their
neighborhood. He wishes that things could be built for the public good first, and then afterwards
for whatever the person's private needs are. But, in fact that is what the zoning code does, the
zoning code is written as an intention for public good. It does not restrict private enterprise, or
enterprise beyond that. If the City is looking at what the code sees as goals for the
neighborhood as illuminated and as explained via the zoning code, then they will see this as a
mistake for the neighborhood. Argan urges them that when there's a new property built in the
neighborhood it be held to the highest standards of what the codes, goals and desired
outcomes are for the neighborhood. He hopes this Board will see this is a mistake and ask the
property owner to revise the plans to create something that's safer for the neighborhood, safer
for kids in the northside, and ultimately a more thoughtful development.
Jim Throgmorton (814 Ronalds Street) is speaking as chair of the Northside Neighborhood
Association's Steering Committee and they support new infill development that is consistent
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan and the RNS district. With that
in mind, they urge the Board to grant Mr. Moore's appeal concerning the building permit for 319
North Van Buren. They do so because of the design drawing approved by City staff as a part of
the building permit violates section 14-2A-D, dimensional requirements of the zoning code.
Subsection B1 C states that minimum setback requirements are intended to "reflect the general
building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods". Subsection 134-D states
"stairways that function as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above the
ground or first floor of the building may not extend into any required setback". The staircase
providing access to the street facing second floor entrance of the proposed building projects 8'
into the required 10' setback. In her April 7 memorandum Development Services Coordinator
Danielle Sitzman claims "stairways are an allowed building feature which may extend into the
required principle building setback areas' and "the stairway can extend without limit into the
front setback area". In letters to the Board and in oral presentations the supporters of Dave
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 5 of 12
Moore's appeal have presented detailed objections so there's no need for me to reiterate them
tonight. Suffice it to say the Northside Neighborhood Association agrees with their rebuttal and
thinks the Board should as well. On a personal note, Throgmorton stated he takes no pleasure
in going against the recommendations from Danielle Sitzman, he has known her for a while and
admires the quality of her work. However, in this instance, she's wrong. Section B4-D prohibits
stairways within the setback. If the Board lets this building permit stand, precedent will be set for
subsequent buildings to follow and will undermine the Northside Neighborhood and the intent of
the RNS-12 zoning district. Therefore, they urge the Board to grant the appeal and revoke the
permit. Throgmorton stated they would be eager to work with the owner to come up with a
building that contributes to a healthy balance of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing
without compromising the character of the Northside Neighborhood.
Jake Vardaman (315 North Van Buren Street) stated he is the neighbor and the closest house
to this and it's a safety issue for him because his wife and he are deathly afraid of that alley.
Cars zoom by there and he doesn't know why there's no stop signs on it because delivery
trucks, college students, bicycles, motorcycles zip through there without stopping. His kids know
to stop and look both ways, but they're five and seven and don't always and when it comes to
an alley they don't notice that it's a car thruway, they just think it's sidewalk. Now usually when
they come to a four-way intersection with stop signs, they're more cognizant of it. He and his
wife constantly sit at the alley asking them to stop and look both ways. He is worried because
cars don't stop and kids don't stop. He walks to Horace Mann with his kids every day, twice a
day, sometimes four times or more a day and it's still an issue and it's still something that he
and his wife are petrified, that they're going to get clipped by not stopping appropriately and
looking both ways. Vardaman feels it's just as much about them not seeing the cars coming
down that alleyway as the cars not seeing them when they cross back to come to the house.
On a lesser note, there's nothing better than living in the Northside Neighborhood and he plans
on living there and dying there. He has been in his house for 23 years and there's nothing better
than sitting on the porch and waving to the neighbors that when they come by and looking down
the street a little bit and right now he's got a really nice view to the north. He can't wait for a
house to get there as he doesn't want to see a crowded parking lot there but it has nothing to do
with his sights. That's a way lesser note then the safety issue of the cars zooming by but he
though he probably better say something.
Sitzman restated from last week's reading of the code, as was presented by staff to the Board,
staff walked through how they interpreted the structure of the code and how it should be read
and the most relevant sections to the stairwell. Sitzman feels they accurately represented their
position that the stairwell is a building feature that can project into that front yard setback area
without limit as the way the code is currently structured. The limitations are itemized in each of
the parallel sections to that. She noted the proper way to read the code would be that if the
there is no limitation on stairways that applies in this situation, then there is no limit on the
location of the stairway. Specifically, the section of the code that lists stairways explains in what
context they may not extend and where and that specifically lists access to dwelling units above
the ground floor/first floor, which staff represented was not the case in the design of this
building. Therefore, the stairway had no limitation on it.
Sitzman continued that the Board raised the question last week, and there has been some
testimony this evening about main entrances, and what's a main entrance. Sitzman stated she
looked at the code to find where main entrance is defined and in short, the term main entrance
is defined in the zoning code and used in standards related to front setback area coverages, not
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 6 of 12
setback encroachment limits. Therefore, it's a different section of the code than what staff think
applies here. The ground floor/first floor of the subject property meets the definition in the code
of main entrance. Stairways are more specifically regulated as building features in the standards
relating to minimum setback requirements, not setback area coverage limits where that term is
used and the zoning code does not contain any more relevant design standards. There's been
discussion tonight about foyer and other elements inside the building, the City doesn't regulate
the inside of people's homes and doesn't have standards for what kinds of rooms an entrance
needs to open into. When staff looked at the floorplan, the area of the building accessed by the
ground floor/main floor door is accessible to the rest of the building. Not every house has a
foyer, she doesn't have a foyer in her home, but it meets the minimum design standards that are
relevant to single family homes. There are a lot of design standards in the code to regulate
multifamily buildings, but not single-family buildings. Single-family homes are largely regulated
by very basic standards, which is what they've been talking about tonight.
Carlson noted then because the door is on the ground level it can be considered the main
entrance. Sitzman explained stairways are only prohibited when they access floors above the
main floor/ground floor so it was important to establish which floor of this building was the main
floor/ground floor and the zoning code would determine the first floor, the lowest floor of this
building, to the be the main floor/first floor. Therefore, the stairway is not accessing the main
floor/first floor, it's accessing a level above that. Carlson noted the City does not use the
definition of what transpires in that area to describe whether it is a living area. Sitzman
reiterated the definition of main entrance which isn't relevant to the stairway talks about the
primary entrance used by residents to gain access to their dwelling units typically located in
such ways. The main entrance is not a relevant term in this instance, so the stairway is not
accessing the main floor/ground floor of the building in the current design of the home.
Geerdes stated at the end of the day what they need to decide is what Section 4 of the City
code means, he can give his interpretation, the City can give its interpretation, but it is the
Board's responsibility to make an interpretation of what that section means. It gives a list of
building features permitted within required setback area and nowhere in that list is staircases.
The first paragraph talks about certain awnings, enclosed porches, fire escapes, stoops and
wheelchair ramps and then it says stairways that function as the principal means of access to
dwelling units located above ground or first floor of a building may not be in the required
setback. He reiterated they are dealing with an entrance that opens into a foyer that has a closet
for the guests to put their coats in. The entrance that acts like a main entrance and serves like a
main entrance, is the main entrance. Don't let the City ruin the neighborhood by stretching the
code to a point well past it's breaking point. Tell the developer to build something that complies.
Dave Moore (425 East Davenport Street)wanted to add that Dorothy Fowles, who owns the
property at the other end of the alley, wanted him to point out that the stairs on the design
drawings go to that level called the main level. Moore hopes the Board dug deep into the
literature that was sent in by Bob Miklo and that's where they really get into the code, as well as
what Mr. Geerdes said, so Moore just want to remind them that a full story staircase is not listed
as a building feature that is permitted in the front setback anywhere. There are features that are
listed as permitted, but it is not similar to these listed features. Section 14-2A-4B-4 states those
are features that are listed and the staircase is not limited to any of those things. The code lists
building features that are not allowed in the setback. The full story stairs is similar in design and
scale to the prohibited features. In subsection 14-4C-2J also prohibits structures like decks and
platforms from going into the front setback. These stairs clearly have decks on them and
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 7 of 12
platforms, whether they're uncovered or covered. The code says stoops to the ground on the
first floor are allowed to intrude and this is the only indication of stairs being allowed to intrude
into the setback area. Finally, as they have said, and especially within the writings of Bob Miklo
who worked at the City for decades, it doesn't make a difference whether this is the main
entrance or a secondary entrance, they're prohibited. Even if one did buy the building official
Sitzman's reading of the code language, the door that was added to the alley facing side of the
building, after the permit was already issued, is hidden by a stairway and is not designed as a
primary entrance. Regardless of what they call the principal means of access, there is nothing in
the code that permits a full story staircase to the second floor to intrude. Moore stated he
applied for this appeal but there were a lot of other people involved. But he applied because he
thinks the building official made a mistake when issuing the permit at 319 North Van Buren
Street back in February 2002, again in December 2022 when they added that doorway on the
alley, and again when renewing it in January 2023 and the permit should be revoked.
Dorothy Fowles (310 North Gilbert Street) is the owner of the property at the other end of the
alley. She has a 150-year-old property and takes good care of it and likes the neighborhood
and protecting that property. She noted the architect or builder defines the main level and that
door is 3'6" which is the normal size of a main door. The door on the setback toward the alley is
only 3' wide. She has tried to figure out what the height of the landing is going up to that stairs
and the best she could tell is about 7'. So to get to this so called principal door that comes off
the alley and doesn't face Van Buren, they are going to have to go under this landing to get to it
or come from the alley to get to it. She also noticed that on the floor plan drawings, at the
bottom, it says 7' front door and that 7' front door is on the main level. The plan is calling that
the front door. Fowles noted her background is such that she has taught at Iowa State for 30
years in design and in a lot of residential plan work with students. She also was on the Board of
Adjustments many decades ago.
Sitzman stated the question before the Board is not do I like the design, or do the neighbors like
the design, when plans are submitted to staff for review, the question is not if the staff like the
design, ultimately the question is the same question to you that staff faced, is do the plans
violate the zoning code. The presumption is that the words in the code must have a meaning,
their format, their construction, the way that they are laid out and how they are meant to be
referenced together, is the most important aspect of this. City staff concluded that the plans do
not violate the zoning code.
Russo noted they are not experts in this, they are laymen and laywomen who have to find their
way through this. From his reading, he doesn't see staircases allowed. He sees verbiage about
cornices, balconies, and similar items, but to make the jump to include staircases in that, it
seems that this whole debate hinges on that sort of leap of faith. Sitzman stated staffs
argument would be that there's a clear format as to the construction of the zoning code section
that's most relevant to that feature of the building. They would consider the stairway to be a
building feature to be most directly regulated by the section that references minimum setback
requirements for principal buildings. The subsection that talks about which building features are
permitted within the required setback area where everything else is not allowed. This code
already establishes in that flow of its reading that there's an area where you may not have your
principal building except for these things and then it itemizes in A, B, C, D, and E, what those
things are. The way each one of those A, B, C, D and E are worded is it identifies the feature
and then it specifically says where and by how much they may or may not exceed. A lists
awning, uncovered balconies, bay windows, belt courses, buttresses, canopies, chimneys,
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 8 of 12
cornices, sills and other similar features, and then explains to where and by how much they may
not extend. B lists enclosed porches, covered decks, covered patios, and unenclosed and
screened in porches, where and by how much they may or may not exceed the setback. C lists
fire escapes and then explains where and by how much they may not be extended. Each one is
a little bit different and they're not exactly symmetrical to each other, but they are hitting on the
same thing, to list the feature and what may and may not happen to that. Clearly they have
determined that the building feature that they're all discussing is a stairway, it's the closest
identifiable thing, and in section D where it further explains in what context they may or may not
extend where. So in that section about stairways it says what the context is and it's context is
the function of the stairway is as the principal means of access to dwelling units located above
the ground floor or first floor of the building. So the context of the stairway matters, it has to be
in that context, and if it's in that context, then it may not extend into any required setback. If it's
not used in that context there's no more talk about it. It's simply listed, that context doesn't apply
to stairwells, then there is no limit on it. That is how staff has interpreted it.
Russo asked then from a layman's viewpoint, does it make sense to prohibit this stairway to a
primary access but allow it if it's secondary, or essentially not necessary. Sitzman noted there is
some nuance to that section in that it talks about dwelling units. In a single-family home, there is
only one dwelling unit, so there are not multiple dwelling units in the structure at all. It's a
standard located in the section about single-family homes, which is a pretty big mismatch for
single-family homes, except that it's there in the code and it must have a meaning. So if they've
listed stairways in things that are allowed to be in the required setback area, and the only time
they're not allowed is when they're for units, and they're the principal means of access to those
units above ground floor/first floor, that's a clear context and why staffs made that interpretation.
Russo asked if there is a place they can point to that says stairways are allowed, or is there just
a stated context and everything else is allowable. Sitzman reiterated not every one of these, A
through E are written exactly the same, they don't all say, awnings are allowed, they say
sometimes awnings and these other things are not allowed in this area and then they would be
allowed in the other areas. Therefore, it's as much what it's not saying as what it is saying.
Simply being here as a listed item must have meaning, stairways are in here for a reason and
the only context it's prohibited in is when it's functioning in the context that's not the principal
means of access to dwelling units above ground floor/first floor.
Russo asked if it makes any sense to not allow them if it's the principal means of access but do
allow them if it's not the principal means of access. Sitzman noted that interpretation is for the
Board to determine. Russo is surprised that the zoning code is that subjective. Sitzmann replied
zoning codes are a living documents, they are drafted and redrafted, certain sections are
amended from time to time, and there's not one zoning code that is written the same
everywhere in the country.
Russo asked is this applied uniformly throughout Iowa City. Sitzman confirmed yes. Russo
asked has this situation ever come up before, an appeal of a stairway in a front setback area.
Sitzman replied not to her knowledge.
Carlson closed the public hearing.
Lientz noted he is the city attorney for North Liberty and here to help and give legal advice to the
Board. He thought it'd be useful to acknowledge what the standard is for an appeal. What
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 9 of 12
they're hearing is that there's an appeal of the building official's decision and tonight the Board
will be able to affirm or reverse that decision. Once the Board begins to deliberate and have
discussions about what you've heard, you'll have to have a motion saying I move that the Board
should affirm the decision of the building official to grant a permit or to reverse that decision,
those are the two options, affirm or reverse. The reason the options are affirm or reverse is that
the granting of a building permit is a ministerial act and a ministerial act is one that is
differentiated from a discretionary act. So if someone satisfies all of the requirements for a
building permit, the City does not have any discretion in whether it issues a building permit or
not. The question is was the law adhered to. Lientz acknowledged that the parties have done a
nice job of pointing out and directing the Board through the code sections and made arguments
as how they should interpret it. It is true that this is not a question of the character of the
neighborhood, that is not something that enters into this particular decision. The only job here
tonight is to say yes the permit satisfies the requirements of the code or it does not. The ultimate
question before the Board is whether the decision was a correct interpretation of the code, and
then you will choose to affirm or reverse based on your findings.
Russo asked if they are talking about contexts and verbiage and absence of verbiage. Lientz
stated it is true that when you're interpreting an ordinance or a statute, the appropriate way to
interpret that is to try to give meaning to every word and phrase in the code. He suggested
when they come to a decision and make a motion to say why you feel that this is the correct
interpretation of the code. That's what you want to do tonight in order to have to fulfill your
obligations to review the appeal.
Russo asked if they can make a decision with conditions. Lientz replied no because the
issuance of a building permit is a binary choice.
Swygard looked at principal means of access because that, to her, is part of the reasoning on
the part of the building official as to the placement of the stairwell. She also looked at the
placement allowed per the zoning code and everybody agrees on where the front of the building
is, at least. The building official designated the alley entrance on the ground floor, lower level on
the south building facade as the principal means of access. She looked first at definitions and
then at the history and design. The definitions that she looked at are all in Title 14 of the Iowa
City's zoning code, chapter nine (14-9A-1) and she looked at the main entrance, which has
already been covered. See looked at main fagade and looked at primary street frontage. Main
facade is the front facade of a primary building and they've already agreed on where the front is,
that is on the east elevation. The primary street frontage is the frontage of a lot to which the
address is assigned. The address for this property is assigned 319 on North Van Buren, so
that's also on the east. A couple of words that she looked at that were not in Title 14 definitions
were principal and main. She did look at foyer because she looked at the design of the building
and also looked at the history. The building plans dated January 5, 2022 showed the entrance
at the front of the house on the east facade, which faces North Van Buren Street. This entrance
is on the main level, which is the second story and was accessed by a stairway and the front
entrance was into a foyer. The south facing entrance on those building plans was labeled lower
level/ground floor and show a 9'x11.5' room on the lower level labeled as bedroom. Therefore,
the principal means of access to the home at that time is along the east elevation, along the
primary street frontage, which would be accessed by stairway. The revised or most current
building plans that are dated March 2, 2023, now show access to the home on the lower
level/first floor south elevation from the alley. That opens into the area previously labeled
bedroom which is now labeled office. The front facing east facade entry is still there with the
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 10 of 12
foyer and access by the stairway. She established those concepts as to the change in building
plans and the addition of a door that's now being called the primary access. She looked at the
context in the neighborhood and drove through the neighborhood and down the alley. She also
Googled all of the properties and they all do conform to the front setback. So, after looking at
definitions, the history of the building design, and the design of the neighborhood she concluded
that the second story entrance on the east facade is the principal primary main means of access
and not the south fagade on the lower level/ground floor facing the alley. Although the door on
the south elevation, the alley entrance, may be used as an entry function for convenience as the
principal means of access, she doesn't think it meets the criteria outlined in the zoning code.
Regarding the building features, Swygard looked at the code and many of those same building
features have been brought up and they've heard about them. What's allowed are awnings,
balconies, bay windows, what she would describe as smaller features of a building. What is not
permitted are porches, covered decks, covered patios, so that leaves the question of stairway.
There's nothing in the code specifically about stairways and that's the main question. She goes
back to the code as principal means of access to dwelling units located above the ground or first
floor may not extend into the required setback.
Carlson stated reading the zoning code itself, it seems simple, but when she started listening to
what Sitzman had said, and then what Mr. Moore had said, Mr. Moore has his story and
Sitzman has her story and they both have a bias. But the drawings do not have a bias, they are
just there. So looking at the drawings, the drawings are telling her the main entrance is on the
second floor, on the first plans the main entrance was obviously on the second floor, there was
no entrance on the south east corner on the ground floor. There was an entrance in the back to
the garage, and then from the garage to the house, but there was no entrance there. When
they decided that would not be approved, that a door was put in. That door on the second floor
has always stayed the same except for one change. In the first plan, there was a sidelight by
that door. That door is 3'6"x7' and noted on every single one of the drawings that it was to be
red, and she reads that as this is an important door to this structure. When they put the door
downstairs, it was not a red door, it was a door of the same color as the door that goes into the
garage in the back of the building. What does that say about that door, it's a door to the
structure, but it is not a main door and does not in any way, shape or form stand out as the
principal entrance to that unit.
Additionally, Carlson noted in the first plan, which was not approved, the area downstairs was a
bedroom. Off the bedroom, there was a full bath and a door from that room to the stairway
which closes that off from the rest of the building. As an office, it can be rented out, although it's
in a residential area, and that says hey, this may be part of the building, but this is not a major
part of the building that everyone is involved in. Looking at the second floor, Sitzman was
concerned about the word foyer, but when you go into that door, it is an open space, you see
most of the second floor and over to the right there is a closet where people can hang coats,
usually when there is an important entrance, there is a place where people can hang coats.
There is also a half bath with a stool and a sink and that is one of the things that is usually
included with a principal door. Sitzman said they deal only with the outside of the building, but
the inside of the building, to some extent, is a good mirror of what is going on outside. The other
thing is on the first floor, there is a door that closes that area off to the steps. On the second
floor, there are no doors that close off steps going upstairs or going downstairs, it is all open. To
her that is the primary living area and the red door is the major door. Therefore, they should not
allow a staircase from that door down to the first floor because it is the principal door.
Board of Adjustment
April 19, 2023
Page 11 of 12
Russo looked at his notes and one note he thinks is pertinent here is that it just doesn't make
any sense to disallow a stairway that leads from the ground floor to a primary entrance from
intruding into the setback area but if it's a superfluous or secondary or serendipitous stairway,
then it's allowed. It may not be this Board's purview, but it goes to bigger questions. Honestly,
from his perspective it doesn't revolve around which is primary and which is not, it is the fact that
they are allowing an incidental structure, but prohibiting an integral structure and one would
think it would be the other way around. He has all due respect for City staff and has worked with
them extensively and this is a tough case. He hates to see the zoning code revolve around
issues of context and what may be called nitpicking, but in this instance he just can't go along
with the City in this matter.
Regarding APL23-0002 Swygard moved to reverse the decision of the building official for
a building permit that allows the construction of a stairway in the front setback of a
single-family home at 319 North Van Buren Street.
Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson reiterated to look at the drawings, the drawings are not biased one way or another, and
the drawings tell her that the door on the second floor is the principal door. And because the
code says that stairways that function as a principal means of access to dwelling units located
above the ground or first floor of a building may not extend into any required setback, then she
cannot accept it. If they are making the door on the southeast corner on the ground level the
principal door, then why bother to have the door on the second floor, which is only a few feet
away and up eight feet. That becomes an added attraction and most developers don't want to
spend any more money than they have to, this would be an added cost for him to leave it there.
Why leave it there unless it is the main entrance.
Russo agrees what it does is it renders this stairway superfluous and unnecessary if the main
entrance is downstairs.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-0.
Carlson 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.
BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Lehmann noted the Board will meet next on May 10 where there will be a presentation by
Council on the Strategic Plan as well as an application to consider. He also noted they want to
revisit the bylaws at either the May or June meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Carlson moved to adjourn this meeting, seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
April 19,2023
Page 12 of 12
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023
318 4112 4119
NAME TERM
EXP.
BAKER, LARRY 12/3112027 X X O/E
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O/E
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2023 X X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/3112026 X X X
Key: X=Present
O=Absent
O/E=Absent/Excused
----=Not a Member
Item Number: IP10.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
April 28, 2023
Library Board of Trustees: March 23
Attachments: Library Board of Trustees: March 23
IOWA CITY
AW PUBLIC LIBRARY
Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees
Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2023
2n1l Floor - Boardroom
Regular Meeting - 5:00 PM
DRAFT
Carol Kirsch - President Joseph Massa John Raeburn
Tom Rocklin -Vice President Claire Matthews Hannah Shultz
DJ Johnk - Secretary Robin Paetzold Dan Stevenson
Members Present: DJ Johnk,Carol Kirsch,Joseph Massa, Robin Paetzold,John Raeburn,Tom Rocklin,
Hannah Shultz, Dan Stevenson.
Members Absent: Claire Matthews.
Staff Present: Elsworth Carman, Sam Helmick,Anne Mangano,len Miller, Brent Palmer,Angie Pilkington,
Jason Paulios, Katie Roche.
Guests Present: Brandon Ross.
Call Meeting to Order. Kirsch called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.A quorum was present.
Approval of March 23, 2023 Board Meeting Agenda. Shultz made a motion to approve the
March 23,2023 Board Meeting Agenda.Johnk seconded. Motion passed 710.
Raeburn joined the meeting at 5:01 PM.
Public Discussion. None.
Ross joined the meeting at 5:01 PM.
Items to be Discussed.
Policy Review:802 Confidentiality. Mangano noted one correction,the revised date was the 231 and not
the 21St. Mangano explained the Confidentiality Policy is an important document that is used daily and is a
pillar of intellectual freedom. Mangano explained the proposed edits, including defining what personally
identifiable information is. ICPL has a privacy website which patrons can access and explains every piece of
data the library collects,why it's collected,and how it's eliminated. Another change to the policy clarifies who
the custodian of the library records is. Mangano said,according to the attorney general, it is the library
director and not a designee. Mangano noted the addition of the Library Bill of Rights to the policy which is
also in the Collection Development policy. Having the Library Bill of Rights in the policy is helpful to refer to
when enforcing procedures with patrons.
Mangano shared the Iowa City Police Department does have access to ICPL security cameras and felt it was
important to be upfront about that.The police department does not regularly monitor these cameras.
If you will need disability-retated accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contactlen Miller, Iowa City
Public Library,at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to
meet your access needs.
IOWA CITY
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Johnk noted line 802.2.d and liked that it called out Iowa Code.Johnk also liked the changes to 802.4.Johnk
asked if Mangano anticipated making changes with the current legislative session. Mangano said not in the
current legislation session but thinks the relationship between a child and their guardian may change.
Current state law protects a child's library account from the oversight of a parent unless a material they check
out becomes billed. If this happens the guardian may be presented with a list of items billed as they are
financially obligated for them.
Shultz asked if ICPL maintains past borrowing records for patrons. Mangano said the library does not but
patrons can opt in to have their reading history saved.This feature can be turned off by patrons at any point
and it will then wipe out the saved data. Rocklin noted the privacy policy on the library website that explains
record retention and wondered if that was worth mentioning in the Confidentiality Policy. Mangano
suggested adding language stating ICPL keeps a record retention list. Rocklin and Johnk agreed and asked
when library materials are returned are those records taken off an individual's record. Mangano agreed they
were.
Paetzold noted line 802.34 of the policy used the word embarrassment and wondered if harassment was a
more appropriate term. Mangano clarified this word came from the American Library Association and
Paetzold agreed it should be kept for consistency. Paetzold asked about record retention in regards to the
Bed Bug Policy. Mangano explained when an item is checked in the record is removed from the patron
account. However,a staff person can look at individual item records to see who the last borrower was.Sierra
keeps the record associated with the item until someone else checks it out. Paetzold said in a previous Bed
Bug incident staff were able to look up adjacent items on the shelves.Mangano said yes and no.When
someone checks an item out the previous patron information is cleared.Mangano shared in the Bed Bug
incident a patron returned 75 items all at once and staff were able to quickly find the records before other
patrons could check them out. Paetzold clarified that when an item is returned library records are still there. If
the library were subpoenaed for that information we would still have it. Rocklin clarified if he returned an item
library staff can't go in and see the last thing he had checked out but staff could conceivably run a report of
who the last patron was for every item in the collection and then search for an individual person.Paetzold
said if sensitive library materials were returned staff could find out if it was needed. Mangano said such a
request would have to pass the muster of a subpoena. Mangano said there are Supreme Court cases that say
what can pass as subpoena and what can't.Mangano recommended consulting the City Attorney's office.
Mangano said this happens very rarely across Iowa libraries. Helmick suggested contacting Sierra and
advocated for privacy.Johnk agreed. Paetzold noted the importance of the Board understanding record
retention practices.Carman said staff could contact Sierra to see what options are available.There was
discussion about potential crimes and whether or not to store library records.
Paulios entered at 5:15 PM.
Rocklin suggested approving the policy for now and amending next month if needed.Johnk agreed. Rocklin
made a motion to approve the revisions to policy 802 Confidentiality. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 8J0.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report.Carman shared City Council member, Pauline Taylor,would be available in April or May to
present to the Library Board on the City of Iowa City Strategic Plan. Raeburn asked what property tax backfill
is.Carman explained several years ago changes were made to property tax laws on commercial properties.
This created a gap in income for cities across the state which was then backfilled by the State of Iowa for a set
number of years, but has now ended. Rocklin clarified the state cut commercial property taxes. Paetzold said
since Iowa City is a college town it is more vulnerable. Carman said the State made errors in calculating when
backfill funding would run out and changes are happening sooner than expected.Cities across Iowa had
approved budgets for the next fiscal year when the corrected numbers were released.Stevenson asked if a hit
to the library budget should be expected.Carman said not at this time but he expects a flat budget next year.
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contactien Miller,Iowa City
Public Library,at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-mister@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to
meet your access needs.
QW,* IOWA CITY
041W PUBLIC LIBRARY
Kirsch commented on a previous Board packet which discussed potential threat to the Library Levy and
Mangano gave a legislative update:
• Senate File 356 would eliminate the library levy and allow cities to put that money in a general fund to
spend as they see fit. Mangano said the bill is expected to go nowhere this particular legislative
session.The House has another bill that will only allow the value of properties assessed to increase 3%
per year. Mangano believes this is something we will need to watch next year as this is a priority of
legislature and the governor.
• The state reorganization bill, Senate File 514 and House File 662, passed and will be signed by the
governor eminently.This moved the State Library of Iowa to the Department of Administrative
Services and removed the oversight capacity of the Commission for Libraries.The full impact of this is
unknown.Mangano said it will take a huge amount of time to implement this change. Mangano
thanked the Trustees for their statement on the state government reorganization bill.
• The education reform bill, Senate File 496,expanded the definition of sexually explicit material and
included a provision that written consent from a guardian would be required for any student to check
out materials that were banned at any public-school library in Iowa.This bill passed in the senate but
has an uphill battle in the House. Mangano believes age appropriate language will likely stay. Senate
File 221 on exploitation of a minor broadened the definition to include visual representations and
passed both chambers.
• Senate File 391 passed,which eliminated teaching certification requirements for teacher librarians.
Mangano explained there are legal impacts of this change to be determined as teachers are overseen
by the Education Department and public librarians are overseen by the Administrative Department.
Carman said the Iowa City Public Library has the highest possible library levy allowed by the state.The
proposed property tax bill would increase city tax revenue but in exchange libraries would lose designated
funds. Iowa City's library levy had strong community support when it passed with 68%approval. Kirsch
suggested having City Council member Taylor attend the April Board meeting.Carman agreed to follow up
with Taylor.
Rocklin shared that he and Paetzold attended the Drag Storytime event and felt staff did a remarkablejob
handling an immensely difficult situation. Rocklin said despite what you read in the newspaper nothing
happened, no words were exchanged. Rocklin talked with Sgt. Bailey and 3-4 other city staff who were at the
event to be supportive. Paetzold agreed staff did a greatjob deescalating but didn't agree that it was only
verbal altercation and felt there was an invasion of personal space. Paetzold asked if a protestor becomes
destructive to the delivery of services do staff have the ability to let them know they are getting in the way of
the library mission. Paetzold wondered what the rights of the library were.Carman said Sgt. Bailey was in
communication with legal during the program to make in the moment decisions.Carman said because there
were other available spaces in the meeting room for the protestor, he was permitted to stand in front. Staff
could have asked the protestor to move if there wasn't space for other patrons to go. Rocklin spoke with
Bailey at the event who felt removing the protestor would escalate the situation. Sgt. Bailey felt that isn't what
the kids should remember about the event.Paetzold felt staff did a good job of asking adults with children to
sit in the front of the room. Pilkington said the protestor in the front of the audience was asked to move
multiple times by staff and didn't comply.
Carman said staff thought a lot about the layout of the story time space and thinks we learn more every time
we do a Drag Storytime. It continues to frustrate Carman that children were in the hallway and unable to
attend the program because the library was at capacity,even though there were adults without children
taking their space. Carman spoke with legal and staff can't ask adults to leave children's programming,this is
age discrimination.Carman praised Reclington for having limited idle time between doors opening and the
program starting.Carman said a few people questioned choosing to have a police officer at Drag Storytime.
Ifyou will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contact Jen Miller Iowa City
Public Library,at 379-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to
meet your access needs.
*$M IOWA CITY
JIFAW PUBLIC LIBRARY
Carman felt it was the right choice in this instance,and there was a lot of conversation beforehand in making
this choice.Carman felt Bailey was a very good fit for the program and was knowledgeable about first
amendment rights. Massa agreed police presence was a good idea and he would like to see more police at
events. Massa is worried an unstable person could come and do something worse; his concern was for the
safety of the children. Massa was in favor of having two officers next time.Massa asked if there is a way to
make it so only children could be in the area of the program.Johnk didn't think the library could do that.
Pilkington consulted with legal beforehand and was told no, but staff could say no signage if it was a library
policy. Pilkington discussed safety efforts that were made to keep everyone at the event safe.Carman shared
Sgt. Bailey had a plan in case the situation escalated and it never met that threshold.
Paetzold sat with the protestors at the event and had a chance to talk with a few of them. Paetzold found that
many of the parents were concerned about videotaping and the right to privacy. Paetzold felt it very
important to make clear what the rules are on videotaping children. Paetzold also found that not all of the
protestors were there to be disruptive. Paetzold overheard a conversation in which a patron said,"this isn't
what you told me it was going to be,this was great.You said it was going to be a strip show." Paetzold felt it
was a positive,vulnerable,and educational exchange.
Rocklin said there was a small group of counter protestors that came to Drag Storytime,also with signs of
support. Rocklin would encourage discussion of a sign policy. Massa agreed they were distasteful and could
be used to injure someone. Rocklin shared the University of Iowa has a no sticks policy on signs. Kirsch asked
if the library could ban signs.Carman said it must be linked to library policy and also must define what a sign
is. Carman gave examples of how a sign policy could be abused.
Massa asked what the children were making of the situation at the event. Pilkington said it wasn't as
disruptive as the last drag storytime. Previously, kids entering the program saw a group of men verbally
attacking their librarian. Pilkington felt it was less intimidating for people walking into the event this time as
the room was full of attendees. Carman said the vast majority of people in the room were respectful to the
performance.Carman explained children are perceptive and when there were arguments before and after the
event many kids had wide eye expressions and stayed close to caregivers.
Paetzold asked if a parent says they do not want their child videotaped do they have any rights whatsoever.
Carman wasn't able to say definitively but thinks from conversations with legal the library can't say no
because it is a public space. Paetzold asked if parents have the right to say no and Carman suggested double
checking with legal.
Massa asked if attendance was heighted due to current legislation.Carman said the event was held during
Spring Break but certainly some of the adults were there due to recent media. Pilkington said the June of
2018 story time had higher attendance and around 125 people had to be turned away.That program was
held during Pride Fest on a rainy day.
Raeburn asked if there is a policy about photographing in the Library. Carman said anyone can photograph
during a program however any other time staff ask that patrons taking pictures not show the faces of other
patrons. Helmick discussed the importance of not photographing at checkout areas as this is an intellectual
privacy concern. Raeburn said not allowing photographs is a hard thing to enforce. Paetzold felt the
photographs were an aggression at Drag Storytime.Johnk asked Pilkington if she heard anything from the
Queens about returning for another program.Pilkington said they will be returning and are ready to go again.
Departmental Reports:Adult Services. Paulios said the new Digital Media Lab logo didn't display correctly
in the Board Packet and showed Trustees a copy of the logo on his phone. Kirsch asked if the social work
practicum was going well. Paulios said yes,Le Sage met with a group of staff yesterday for the first crisis
intervention meetup. Paulios said it has been nice to have Le Sage's perspective in talking through how staff
interact with folks. Paulios shared the teem room is fully staffed now.
Community&Access Services. Kirsch said she was sorry the fREADm to Read program went indoors due to
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contact len Miller,Iowa City
Public Library,at 319-887-6003 orjennifer-miller@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to
meet your access needs.
-01WO IOWA CITY
OW PUBLIC LIBRARY
the weather outlook.Helmick said the Bookmobile will be going to the Johnson County Fair for the first time.
Johnk thanked everyone for attending ILA Legislative Day.
Development Report. Paetzold thanked Roche for the update on events. Roche shared Eat Out to Read
would be at Micky's and a portion of sales benefit ICPL. Rocklin asked how much Eat Out to Read events
generate. Roche said $400-$700. Roche discussed the upcoming Wine fundraiser on Friday at Hy-Vee and said
the Foundation is also helping to support fREADom to Read on Saturday.
Miscellaneous:News Articles. No discussion.
President's Report. Kirsch said the nominating committee will be announcing a slate of officers at the
next meeting. Kirsch said she will also appoint two Trustees to the ICPL Friends Foundation Board at the next
meeting.
Announcements from Members. None.
Committee Reports.Johnk said the Governance Committee met about a minor reorganization which
will affect the Book End and will be brought to the Friends Foundation Board.
Communications.
Email from Sgt. Kevin Bailey.Kirsch said the email was very complimentary of staff.
Consent Agenda.Johnk made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Rocklin seconded. Motion
passed 810.
Set Agenda Order for April Meeting. Kirsch shared at the April meeting Trustees will be appointed
to the Foundation Board,a slate of officers will be presented,third quarter financial and statistical reports will
be discussed,and City Council member Pauline Taylor will present on the City of Iowa City Strategic Plan.
Kirsch would like the Finance Committee to meet a half hour before the April Board meeting.
Adjournment. Kirsch adjourned the meeting at 6:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jen Miller
I f you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,please contact-len Miller, Iowa City
Public Library, at 319-887-6003 or jennifer-miller@icpl.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to
meet your access needs.
N
O
MX [G X X Q X X X X X
N
M
M
N
O
� x a x x x x x x x x
e
m
e
w
0
mx a x x x x wa x x x
N
N
m
N
O
N
� x a x x x x x x x x
w
�i
N
ro
0
Nx a x x x x x x wo
,y
N
M
N
N
O
.y
N
N
N
O
n x a 0 x 0 x x x x
N
O
.-I
N
N
O
N Q a ❑ X X X X X
N
M
N
N
O
\ X X X x X x x X X
N
N
W
N
N
O
mx x x x x x w0 x x
ry
n
n
0
ro x O w0 x x x x x x
N
W
N
O
1 X X X X X X X X
N
N
W
W
N
N
C
x Q Q x x x
O H
9
a o
z i
u w
O N ~ N N N N N N N N Q Z
C a E A O 1❑V N mN N mN N mN N 8 F ❑ y~j ❑
p w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z z
N V F n ti m m ti m
m �+t Y, m m
o Z j U
'E c w w � � m w �a m �o � �n z m x ❑ w
E V a 4 w z a
a
� Z A ❑ 2 L m 'c a ON C C _ w O v
U .
0 z L E i O n W LJ .Q W O N L O O L O v b
❑ 0 z
m q ° 4 u � � � u a a s ° a i- m 2 �n ❑ wi' x 2 z